snopes.com Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » SLC Central » Soapbox Derby » Religious question (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Religious question
Freshman
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Freshman   Author's Homepage   E-mail Freshman   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Moby, apparently, has read a bible that doesn't condem homosexuality. http://www.moby.com/journal

Now, I like Moby, he's a down to earth fellow whose politics I agree with and I agree with him on Jesus, but here's my question:

is there a version of a bible that doesn't condem homosexuality?

--------------------
"High-Five!" - Borat

Posts: 1056 | From: Racine, WI | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
eif
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 1 posted      Profile for eif     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Did you actually read your cite?

He referred to just the 4 gospels.

While I am no expert on the Bible, IIRC, most of the anti-homosexual stuff is in the old testament. Especially Leviticus.

--------------------
Where I come from we believe all sorts of things that aren't true. We call it History.

Posts: 506 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I have never found any writings by Christ dealing with homosexuality.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Cowboy Joe
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cowboy Joe   E-mail Cowboy Joe   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Protestantism relies rather heavily on the teachings of Paul. And he had quite a lot to say about many of the issues Christians use as part of their agenda.

Now, as a Mormon, I've been told plenty of times that I am not Christian. My question to my fundie friends is why do they follow Paul so closely and just pay passive attention to Christ, yet call themselves followers of Christ?

--------------------
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." -George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

Posts: 382 | From: Wyoming | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Morgaine La Raq Star
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Morgaine La Raq Star   E-mail Morgaine La Raq Star   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
IIRC, Paul mentions it in one or more of his letters as well. However, there is evidence that all of the letters ascribed to Paul were not actually written by him. There are a few that have a different style & are believed to be written by contemporaries of Paul in his name. So, it is possible, that while a 'Letter of Paul' condems homosexuality, it might not have been Paul himself condemning homosexuality.

--------------------
I cannot live without books-Thomas Jefferson *~* A child educated only at school is an uneducated child - George Santayana
I'm going to pummel you with such zeal, Buddha will explode! *~* Never miss a good chance to shut up - Will Rogers

Posts: 6585 | From: Dallas/Fort Worth, TX | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Freshman
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Freshman   Author's Homepage   E-mail Freshman   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Eif et al: you're right, he was refering to the four gospels and he didn't really mention Paul. I should read the bible

--------------------
"High-Five!" - Borat

Posts: 1056 | From: Racine, WI | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
callee
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for callee         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not sure how helpful that is, though, Anglrdr.

First, there are no extant writings of Christ, so strictly put there are no writings of Christ dealing with any subject.

Second and subsequently, the only writings we do have are writings about Christ, and if that's the case, why should we privledge the 4 gospels over any other part of the new testament? Just because they happen to be in bigraphical format? Most of the writings of Paul were written earlier, i.e. closer to the actual time of Christ, than the gospels were, and so if closer to the source is generally better, as far as historical studies go, then shouldn't Paul be given atleast equal status as sources for extracting the teachings of Christ?

Finally, if we do, from one source or another, extract and reconstruct the teachings of Christ, how much difference would it make whether or not they include any reference to homosexuality? His teachings, so far as I can reconstruct them already, omit reference to many things I would consider both good and bad, and yet I still think I am correct in considering those things good and bad. Rape, for example, is bad, yet curiously no (explicit) condemnation of it is found in Jesus' teaching so far as we can tell. Alternatively, evironmental responsibility is good, yet also missing (explicitly) from Jesus' teaching so far as we can tell. In other words, good theology must be so much more than "the bible says it, I believe it."

Now that I've written all this, I see I stopped responding to you, Anglrdr, quite a while ago and began speaking generally. Ooops, sorry.

--------------------
a moment for old friends now estranged, victims of the flux of alliances and changing perceptions. There was something there once, and that something is worth honoring as well. - John Carroll

Posts: 3375 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by callee:
. . . Second and subsequently, the only writings we do have are writings about Christ, and if that's the case, why should we privledge the 4 gospels over any other part of the new testament? Just because they happen to be in bigraphical format?

Um...isn't it obvious? They quote the words of the Saviour himself, not of someone self-appointed to interpret those words.

I can see no distinction in authority between St. Paul, the Pope, Jack Chick, or yourself! (Or myself!)

Far as I can see, the epistles should never have been added to the Bible as formal books, but only as footnotes. They end up being used as authorities in cases like this, even when they contradict what Jesus said!

Silas (And Dante's Divine Comedy *should* be added to the Bible... It's so much more coherent than The Revelation!)

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve Eisenberg
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Eisenberg   E-mail Steve Eisenberg   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freshman:
is there a version of a bible that doesn't condem homosexuality?

Not any that is properly translated.

Of course, one can pick and choose which parts of the Bible to accept. Compared to the attention given many other sins, the portion of the Bible devoted to gay bashing is tiny.

As noted here, Jesus is never quoted saying anything against homosexuality. As a strong opponent of divorce, and a non-violent opponent of sexual license, it is possible to imagine him coming back and saying that not only is he for gay marriage, he insists on it.

Chapter 20 of Leviticus does include homosexuality among the sins (also includes insulting a parent) that should result in your death. Later Jewish holy books (Talmud) provide reasons why this is no longer applicable.

The New Testament (1 Corinthians chapter 6) leaves the punishment to God (no admission to heaven).

--------------------
"Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?"
Julius Lester

Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve Eisenberg
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Eisenberg   E-mail Steve Eisenberg   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
Far as I can see, the epistles should never have been added to the Bible as formal books, but only as footnotes. They end up being used as authorities in cases like this, even when they contradict what Jesus said!

Some of the epistles apparently predate all of the gospels.

Also, the gospels differ in things like Jesus' last words.

--------------------
"Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?"
Julius Lester

Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
callee
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for callee         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
quote:
Originally posted by callee:
. . . Second and subsequently, the only writings we do have are writings about Christ, and if that's the case, why should we privledge the 4 gospels over any other part of the new testament? Just because they happen to be in bigraphical format?

Um...isn't it obvious? They quote the words of the Saviour himself, not of someone self-appointed to interpret those words.

But do they? They put words in Jesus' mouth, yes, but then again, that was quite the standard convention at the time. As the famous money quote from thucydides sets out:
quote:
In this history I have made use of set speeches some of which were
delivered just before and others during the war. I have found it
difficult to remember the precise words used in the speeches which I
listened to myself and my various informants have experienced the
same difficulty; so my method has been, while keeping as close as
possible to the general sense of the words that were actually used,
to make the speakers say what, in my opinion, was called for by each
situation

This convention would explain why, for example, when one studies synoptic relations one discovers that while Matthew copies verbatum 90% of Mark and Luke copies 60%, both Matthew and Luke felt quite free to change - in some cases radically, the text as Mark had it written, even in cases where Mark is offering up words of Christ. It further explains the even more glaring differences between the synoptic and the Johannine presentations of Christ, wherein the former have a Christ who drops pithy little sayings while the latter has a Christ much more after my own heart, i.e. he can go on and on for chapters at a time!

The redactional study of the gospels show that they, no less than Paul, were interpreters of Christ, and they did so, for the most part, after Paul.

Don't be misled by their biographical genre or their prominant place at the head of the Christian canon.

--------------------
a moment for old friends now estranged, victims of the flux of alliances and changing perceptions. There was something there once, and that something is worth honoring as well. - John Carroll

Posts: 3375 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Avril
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Avril     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
You have to consider that Jesus was mostly dealing with Jews, and he never challenged their ideas about homosexuality (derived from Leviticus, etc.) whereas Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, encountered it as a norm among the ancient Romans. Thus I would think Paul had more reason to address it. That's not to say that Jesus didn't interact with Gentiles. But those whom he addressed from a religious standpoint were likely "God-fearers," those who adopted most of the Jewish ways except circumcision.

Avril

ETA: I really shouldn't have posted this without a lot of citations, which I do not have time for right now, regretably. I'll return with a God-fearer citation later.

--------------------
There is no failure unless one stops. --Ray Bradbury

Posts: 2115 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
I'mNotDedalus
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for I'mNotDedalus   Author's Homepage   E-mail I'mNotDedalus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by eif:
While I am no expert on the Bible, IIRC, most of the anti-homosexual stuff is in the old testament. Especially Leviticus.

To echo callee, we only have correlation and attribution for Jesusí sayings. In this light, we do have Matthew 5:17-48, the famous segment entitled the Antithesis of the Law or The Expounding of the Law.

If we are to interpret this as Jesus' affirmation and expansion upon Mosaic Law (a loose paraphrase of Augustine's approach), the laws of Leviticus may well be meant to be included. However, the Antithesis doesn't literally highlight "sodomy laws."

quote:
Originally posted by Morgaine La Raq Star:
IIRC, Paul mentions it in one or more of his letters as well. However, there is evidence that all of the letters ascribed to Paul were not actually written by him. There are a few that have a different style & are believed to be written by contemporaries of Paul in his name. So, it is possible, that while a 'Letter of Paul' condems homosexuality, it might not have been Paul himself condemning homosexuality.

Controversy over the authorship of the Pauline letters generally only include the Pastoral Epistles, Colossians, and Ephesians. Paul's most cited remarks about homosexuality come from 1 Cor 6:9-11, which is not a letter usually included in the argument.

quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
And Dante's Divine Comedy *should* be added to the Bible... It's so much more coherent than The Revelation!

[Big Grin] I wholeheartedly agree! Unfortunately, it's difficult for the Church to canonize a man who condemns a handful of Popes (Sainted Popes, no less) to Hell.

--------------------
The salty fragrance of LíEau IímNotDedalus - made entirely of and entirely for sea turtles.

Posts: 1983 | From: Chicagoland, IL | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by callee:
I'm not sure how helpful that is, though, Anglrdr.

First, there are no extant writings of Christ, so strictly put there are no writings of Christ dealing with any subject.


I did hear that he scribbled something in the dirt once, but yeah, you're right.

quote:
Second and subsequently, the only writings we do have are writings about Christ, and if that's the case, why should we privledge the 4 gospels over any other part of the new testament?

I do, though. To me, the essence of my faith is found in those books.

But I am a heretic, and take much of the rest of the bible with a grain (or a block) of salt, so I don't hold me up as any sort of theological example.
quote:
Just because they happen to be in bigraphical format? Most of the writings of Paul were written earlier, i.e. closer to the actual time of Christ, than the gospels were, and so if closer to the source is generally better, as far as historical studies go, then shouldn't Paul be given atleast equal status as sources for extracting the teachings of Christ?

The issue I have with Paul is what I've discussed here before: he and Christ's teachings are very different. Paul was a details guy and a shameless self-promoter. Christ, not so much.

quote:
Finally, if we do, from one source or another, extract and reconstruct the teachings of Christ, how much difference would it make whether or not they include any reference to homosexuality? His teachings, so far as I can reconstruct them already, omit reference to many things I would consider both good and bad, and yet I still think I am correct in considering those things good and bad. Rape, for example, is bad, yet curiously no (explicit) condemnation of it is found in Jesus' teaching so far as we can tell. Alternatively, evironmental responsibility is good, yet also missing (explicitly) from Jesus' teaching so far as we can tell. In other words, good theology must be so much more than "the bible says it, I believe it."


Like I said, Jesus wasn't about the details, and that is one of the reasons I am so into his philosophy of life. He boiled it down to something very simple, love each other as you love yourself. No complicated notions such as should one cut one's hair...The devil is, I think literally, in the details.

quote:
Now that I've written all this, I see I stopped responding to you, Anglrdr, quite a while ago and began speaking generally. Ooops, sorry.
I wouldn't allow such a trifle to prevent me from responding to you, though. Thanks for the apology, though.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Avril
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Avril     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by I'mNotDedalus:
Controversy over the authorship of the Pauline letters generally only include the Pastoral Epistles, Colossians, and Ephesians. Paul's most cited remarks about homosexuality come from 1 Cor 6:9-11, which is not a letter usually included in the argument.

There's also Romans 1:24-27. Romans is pretty much universally ascribed to Paul. No modern scholar I know of would dispute that Paul wrote Romans.

Incidentally, I did a quick google for the God-fearer thing:

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/chrnoach1.html

Avril

--------------------
There is no failure unless one stops. --Ray Bradbury

Posts: 2115 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
callee
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for callee         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
I did hear that he scribbled something in the dirt once, but yeah, you're right.

[Big Grin] funny! good point though. And, in fact, to jump way into the realm of conjecture for the sake of some potential irony, if the early scribal traditions on that text are correct - that what he wrote in the dirt was "the sins of each of them" - then, given that he was targeting the elites of a first century greco-roman sub-culture from the perspective of traditional Jewish morality, it's certainly not impossible that "homosexuality" was one of the things written in that dirt!

--------------------
a moment for old friends now estranged, victims of the flux of alliances and changing perceptions. There was something there once, and that something is worth honoring as well. - John Carroll

Posts: 3375 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Or sexual immorality of all stripes, for that matter.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
I'mNotDedalus
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for I'mNotDedalus   Author's Homepage   E-mail I'mNotDedalus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Avril:
Incidentally, I did a quick google for the God-fearer thing:

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/chrnoach1.html

As far as I know, "God-fearer" is generally a reference for Proselytes found in Acts, rather than a term for Gentiles. The Catholic Encyclopedia does note, though: "These were sympathetic adherents attracted by the Monotheism and higher ideals of the Jewish religion." Thus, the "God-fearers" may not have even officially converted, keeping them still in the literal non-Jewish/Gentile designation.

--------------------
The salty fragrance of LíEau IímNotDedalus - made entirely of and entirely for sea turtles.

Posts: 1983 | From: Chicagoland, IL | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Pogue Ma-humbug
Happy Christmas (Malls are Open)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Pogue Ma-humbug   E-mail Pogue Ma-humbug   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by callee:
First, there are no extant writings of Christ, so strictly put there are no writings of Christ dealing with any subject.

Why is that? (This is a serious question.) You'd think someone, somewhere, would have found writings from one of the greatest philosophers of all time.

Pogue

--------------------
Let's drink to the causes in your life:
Your family, your friends, the union, your wife.

Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
callee
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for callee         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pogue Mahone:
quote:
Originally posted by callee:
First, there are no extant writings of Christ, so strictly put there are no writings of Christ dealing with any subject.

Why is that? (This is a serious question.) You'd think someone, somewhere, would have found writings from one of the greatest philosophers of all time.

Pogue

Seriously, a variety of answers are possible.

Most modern scholars would answer it very simply: Jesus was illiterate.

I'm troubled by that option, partly because of my own cultural bias (we look down on illiterates) and partly because I'm not yet willing to give up on the basic level of historicity of the gospel accounts that portray him as reading and writing.

All the same, given that less than 10% of that society was literate, and even the gospels admit that Jesus came from a low-level carpenter's family, I do have to admit that strictly on a level of historical probability the odds are certainly stacked against the position I am clinging to.

Other answers could include that Jesus, for his own reasons, chose not to write anything down. This could be explained by a desire to avoid the whole pedestal phenomena (Cf. Paul saying to the Corinthians "I'm glad that I never actually baptised any of you myself, or you guys would be even more divisive and pretentious than you already are." [my paraphrase]).

Or, Jesus could have avoided writing things down because of his cultural preference for oral transmission.

Or, Jesus could have avoided writing things down because of the incredible cost of writing things, i.e. papyrus wasn't cheap.

Or, Jesus could have written it down, but the church lost it. I find this unlikely, since if he did write something down, odds are many ancient writers would refer to it, and odds are atleast one of those references would have survived.

Sorry I can't be more conclusive.

--------------------
a moment for old friends now estranged, victims of the flux of alliances and changing perceptions. There was something there once, and that something is worth honoring as well. - John Carroll

Posts: 3375 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
snapdragonfly
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for snapdragonfly     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cowboy Joe:
Protestantism relies rather heavily on the teachings of Paul. And he had quite a lot to say about many of the issues Christians use as part of their agenda.

Now, as a Mormon, I've been told plenty of times that I am not Christian. My question to my fundie friends is why do they follow Paul so closely and just pay passive attention to Christ, yet call themselves followers of Christ?

As a Christian who really doesn't care that much for Paul (and that's being polite) I wish I had an answer for you.

The dude never even knew him when he was alive. (I realize this is the case with most of the writings but it just bugs me about Paul - I think for the reason that Silas mentioned)

If I'm going to take someone's word for it, it'd be John, or James.

--------------------
"Wolves, dragons and vampires, man. Draw the nut-bars like big ol' nut-bar magnets." ~evilrabbit

(snurched because one of my nutbar family members is all about wolves and another one is all about dragons...)(with apologies to surfcitydogdad)

Posts: 2397 | From: Texarkana, TX | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
I'mNotDedalus
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for I'mNotDedalus   Author's Homepage   E-mail I'mNotDedalus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pogue Mahone:
quote:
Originally posted by callee:
First, there are no extant writings of Christ, so strictly put there are no writings of Christ dealing with any subject.

Why is that? (This is a serious question.) You'd think someone, somewhere, would have found writings from one of the greatest philosophers of all time.
IímNotcallee, so please pardon my intrusion into the question.

Socrates and Gautama Buddha never put pen to paper, either. I think these individuals saw little use for it, much preferring person-to-person interaction and never putting mind to preservation for antiquity.

It could be said that Jesus didn't think much about antiquity as he (and most Jews present in Palestine during the 1st Century) believed the end of the world was imminent. However, Paul definitely ascribed to such beliefs but still saw it fit to record his thoughts. But Paul was a missionary, so he may have employed written communication merely as a facilitator for such ends.

--------------------
The salty fragrance of LíEau IímNotDedalus - made entirely of and entirely for sea turtles.

Posts: 1983 | From: Chicagoland, IL | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
snapdragonfly
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for snapdragonfly     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I'mNotDedalus,
"But Paul was a missionary, so he may have employed written communication merely as a facilitator for such ends."

That's pretty accurate. The books of Paul are all letters to various churches written either by him or someone for him (as has been noted, was totally customary at the time) and probably had no intention of becoming scripture - but they were considered to have signficant enough insight, I guess, or heck I don't know why, (as I said I don't much like him) that they made it into canon.

--------------------
"Wolves, dragons and vampires, man. Draw the nut-bars like big ol' nut-bar magnets." ~evilrabbit

(snurched because one of my nutbar family members is all about wolves and another one is all about dragons...)(with apologies to surfcitydogdad)

Posts: 2397 | From: Texarkana, TX | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
callee
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for callee         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I often run across this type of feeling: that Jesus was a free-floating prophet of love while Paul was a strict imposer of rules and such. So many people seem to say "Jesus I like, Paul I dislike."

When I hear this, I often wonder if, perhaps, the person saying it simply has just read the wrong books about Paul? I mean, Paul is full of wonderful liberation and equality, of hope and optimism, of justice and mutual love and respect. Even just browsing the titles of some of the books written by Paul scholars, e.g. "Paul: Apostle of a Heart Set Free" or "Paul and the Politics of Liberation," or "Paul the Radical Jew," you can't help but get the impression that a lot of people who are really familiar with Paul seem to think he has a lot of good to offer.

So, seriously, who have you guys been reading to get such a negative image? (and a fish to the first who just says "why paul, ofcourse"!)

--------------------
a moment for old friends now estranged, victims of the flux of alliances and changing perceptions. There was something there once, and that something is worth honoring as well. - John Carroll

Posts: 3375 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
snapdragonfly
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for snapdragonfly     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't like Paul, for one reason, because of his views towards marriage. (this is not exact) "it is better to remain (single) even as I am, but if you cannot contain yourself, it is better to marry than to burn."

I just HATE that. And since I consider marriage a sacrament (because what better way to have to learn patience and unconditional love?? It's HARD!) I just disagree with the man totally.

Also (and maybe this is irrational) I've been to churches where I don't think they ever quoted ANY gospel except for John 3:16, it was just Paul Paul Paul Paul all the time, and especially Corinthians. And you'd think James wasn't ever written, they just gloss over everything else but Paul.

He has some good points but not to the exclusion of everyone else.

Also he was a zealot. He zealously prosecuted Christians until his conversion, and then once he converted he just practically bumped Peter off the map and took the whole thing over. Heh. I don't much like zealots.

I dunno. He just bugs me.

--------------------
"Wolves, dragons and vampires, man. Draw the nut-bars like big ol' nut-bar magnets." ~evilrabbit

(snurched because one of my nutbar family members is all about wolves and another one is all about dragons...)(with apologies to surfcitydogdad)

Posts: 2397 | From: Texarkana, TX | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
me, no really
We Wish You a Merry Giftmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for me, no really   Author's Homepage   E-mail me, no really   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by redsnapperdragonfly:
I don't like Paul, for one reason, because of his views towards marriage. (this is not exact) "it is better to remain (single) even as I am, but if you cannot contain yourself, it is better to marry than to burn."

I just HATE that. And since I consider marriage a sacrament (because what better way to have to learn patience and unconditional love?? It's HARD!) I just disagree with the man totally.

Context, context, context. In reading Paul, I get someone who had a high view of marriage. Marriage was important to him, and the relationships within marriage were important. This one passage is talking about mission more than marriage. From memory, the context is that he is saying that he wishes everyone could be single simply because that way everyone would have more time and energy available for mission. See, even in this passage, Paul realises that marriage takes commitment and hard work to be successful. If you are married you won't have the time to do as much other stuff. He is also realistic enough to know that a celibate life of devotion solely to God is not for everyone. This is not a man who hates marriage - but one who is passionate for mission in this context.

quote:
Originally posted by redsnapperdragonfly:
Also (and maybe this is irrational) I've been to churches where I don't think they ever quoted ANY gospel except for John 3:16, it was just Paul Paul Paul Paul all the time, and especially Corinthians. And you'd think James wasn't ever written, they just gloss over everything else but Paul.

He has some good points but not to the exclusion of everyone else.

Also he was a zealot. He zealously prosecuted Christians until his conversion, and then once he converted he just practically bumped Peter off the map and took the whole thing over. Heh. I don't much like zealots.

I dunno. He just bugs me.

That is just one church. I have been to plenty of churches that treat the bible more wholistically than that. I haven't heard Revelation preached on much (I guess because no one really understands it), and I have never heard the rape of Tamar preached on yet, which is a shame. It's a very Icky story but there's a lot to learn there. I have even heard preaching on the genealogies in Genesis - and it was interesting [Big Grin]

me

--------------------
Check out my handmade pens
Check back often because the page changes often

Posts: 831 | From: Brisbane, Australia | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
snapdragonfly
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for snapdragonfly     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
More than just one church, actually.

My current church (I'm a cradle Episcopalian who wandered and then returned) is liturgical so we study the whole bible on a nice tidy schedule. But around here, focusing on Paul to the exclusion of other stuff is very common.

He's still a zealot, and he still gets on my nerves. [Razz] James just is so much more my kinda guy.

--------------------
"Wolves, dragons and vampires, man. Draw the nut-bars like big ol' nut-bar magnets." ~evilrabbit

(snurched because one of my nutbar family members is all about wolves and another one is all about dragons...)(with apologies to surfcitydogdad)

Posts: 2397 | From: Texarkana, TX | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
callee
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for callee         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by redsnapperdragonfly:
I don't like Paul, for one reason, because of his views towards marriage. (this is not exact) "it is better to remain (single) even as I am, but if you cannot contain yourself, it is better to marry than to burn."

I just HATE that. And since I consider marriage a sacrament (because what better way to have to learn patience and unconditional love?? It's HARD!) I just disagree with the man totally.

Well, if it helps, were you to ask Paul to write an objective, universally applicable dictionary article on marriage, I highly doubt his appraisal would sound so negative.

Let me put it to you this way: what would be the very first (i.e. most important to you) material item you would grab out of your house in the following situations:
1) your husband gets a transfer and you are moving to a new city, you have 6 weeks to pack up your belongings.
2) You get an evacuation notice from the government because of an outofcontrol fire; you have 2 days to get you and whatever you can carry out of your house.
3) you return home as flames leap out of the second story window. You can hear the firetrucks on the way, and you figure you've got just enough time to run in and grab just one thing.

Surely your priorities would change a little in each situation, yes?

Likewise, in the text you are referring to Paul thinks that he - and the rest of the world - are in a situation more akin to #3. They key to all his logic in this text really is found in 8:31, "for the present form of this world is passing away."

This is what we call Paul's apocalyptic expectation. He really did think it was all about to end. From that perspective, it makes sense to tell people not to bother getting together to procreate the next generation, since the whole world is going to end before the current generation! In other words, Paul is simply being pragmatic. He doesn't oppose marriage, as he makes explicit in v36, but he does think that, given the circumstances, it's not a wise priority.

Ofcourse, we have a different perspective, and we do not think we are in those circumstances, so to us all Paul's worrying and preparations looks a little like all those crazies who told you to buy cases of bottled water before Y2K.

A sympathetic reading, however, will take account of Paul's natural context [ETA] while at the same time exercising some theological imagination to discover how Paul's message could be recontextualised to be relevant to our current situation, i.e. what would Paul say if he didn't think time was short and the world was about to end? what would paul say to a world that had the resources to feed and heal itself but just didn't? What would paul say about bush?

--------------------
a moment for old friends now estranged, victims of the flux of alliances and changing perceptions. There was something there once, and that something is worth honoring as well. - John Carroll

Posts: 3375 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
snapdragonfly
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for snapdragonfly     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Callee, I am aware of the apocalyptic expectation of the first century - so I see your point -

but the preacher who married my husband and I, - oh hell, it's a long story, but it boils down to he had read that verse at a wedding we'd gone to and I was horrified because despite all that great contextual stuff I still think it's the least appropriate reading for a wedding - anyway I specifically directed him NOT to read that at ours and damned if that's not exactly what he did!! (and I bet this preacher was intending ti with the out of context meaning, too, he's hellfire and brimstone type, ick) Ag, wish I'd rediscovered my Anglicanism at that time. He was the kind of preacher I like least but it was the one thing my husband had any say in and I was trying to be nice.

Yeah, I know that's subjective and personal, but that's why I don't like it. Nobody asked for a LOGICAL reason why I don't like him, just the reason! heh!

He's still a zealot. - but if he came back and preached against Bush I might change my mind...

edited

--------------------
"Wolves, dragons and vampires, man. Draw the nut-bars like big ol' nut-bar magnets." ~evilrabbit

(snurched because one of my nutbar family members is all about wolves and another one is all about dragons...)(with apologies to surfcitydogdad)

Posts: 2397 | From: Texarkana, TX | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
callee
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for callee         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by redsnapperdragonfly:
He's still a zealot.

true. but if you think the world is about to end, would moderation really be a virtue?

mrs. callee and I had a full anglican wedding, with all the readings, eucharist, the whole bit. all our guests were, perhaps, unprepared for the 3 hour ordeal!

--------------------
a moment for old friends now estranged, victims of the flux of alliances and changing perceptions. There was something there once, and that something is worth honoring as well. - John Carroll

Posts: 3375 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
snapdragonfly
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for snapdragonfly     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by callee:
quote:
Originally posted by redsnapperdragonfly:
He's still a zealot.

true. but if you think the world is about to end, would moderation really be a virtue?

mrs. callee and I had a full anglican wedding, with all the readings, eucharist, the whole bit. all our guests were, perhaps, unprepared for the 3 hour ordeal!

eh, it's good for 'em, just as long as you have plenty of wine afterwards.

--------------------
"Wolves, dragons and vampires, man. Draw the nut-bars like big ol' nut-bar magnets." ~evilrabbit

(snurched because one of my nutbar family members is all about wolves and another one is all about dragons...)(with apologies to surfcitydogdad)

Posts: 2397 | From: Texarkana, TX | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
callee
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for callee         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
after 3 hours they were more into the whine. [fish]

--------------------
a moment for old friends now estranged, victims of the flux of alliances and changing perceptions. There was something there once, and that something is worth honoring as well. - John Carroll

Posts: 3375 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
me, no really
We Wish You a Merry Giftmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for me, no really   Author's Homepage   E-mail me, no really   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by redsnapperdragonfly:
but the preacher who married my husband and I, - oh hell, it's a long story, but it boils down to he had read that verse at a wedding we'd gone to and I was horrified because despite all that great contextual stuff I still think it's the least appropriate reading for a wedding - anyway I specifically directed him NOT to read that at ours and damned if that's not exactly what he did!! (and I bet this preacher was intending ti with the out of context meaning, too, he's hellfire and brimstone type, ick) Ag, wish I'd rediscovered my Anglicanism at that time. He was the kind of preacher I like least but it was the one thing my husband had any say in and I was trying to be nice.

Ouch... so what does he preach at funerals? That we are all lousy sinners who deserve to die? I can't think of much that would be more inappropriate to the setting really.

me

--------------------
Check out my handmade pens
Check back often because the page changes often

Posts: 831 | From: Brisbane, Australia | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
snapdragonfly
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for snapdragonfly     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
omg, the funny thing is I WAS at a funeral he preached at a couple weeks ago!!

And the dearly departed guy was, in addition to many other wonderful things, a biker, so the preacher, trying to speak in a language that the scarey biker people would understand, gave this condescending little speech about how Harleys sound one way and other bikes sound another way and so forth.

All of us on the back row were stifling giggles and in fact not doing a very good job of it. (fortunately I know BJ would have been giggling right there with us) Look at the preacher trying to communicate with us scarey bikers...*snx*

It was a vast relief when the preacher from The Biker Church (don't know anything about it except that if the Anglican church dries up and blows away, I'm going to it) got up and gave HIS very touching and lovely speech.

That funeral almost topped Spence's. Man.

edited

eta again - we weren't that rude, really. He did crack a joke that was pretty funny and we just had a hard time keeping it in after that, especially because it was a funeral and you know how horrible it is when you all start laughing someplace you are't supposed to...

--------------------
"Wolves, dragons and vampires, man. Draw the nut-bars like big ol' nut-bar magnets." ~evilrabbit

(snurched because one of my nutbar family members is all about wolves and another one is all about dragons...)(with apologies to surfcitydogdad)

Posts: 2397 | From: Texarkana, TX | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
I'mNotDedalus
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for I'mNotDedalus   Author's Homepage   E-mail I'mNotDedalus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by redsnapperdragonfly:
James just is so much more my kinda guy.

Which James? The Less? The Just? Gasp! The same?!

You'd think that the brother of Jesus would have little praise to write after being relegated to the Seventy rather than the Twelve.

--------------------
The salty fragrance of LíEau IímNotDedalus - made entirely of and entirely for sea turtles.

Posts: 1983 | From: Chicagoland, IL | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Codeô is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2