An apology

jamie26301 · May 13, 2015

I believe I have come on too strong in the stay a virgin thread. I apologize (again) for offending people's traditions or understandings of Scripture. It's quite a revolutionary understanding that is seen as compromising and corrupt. Although it is hard to relate to that, at this point in my life, as I see very little truth that can't be compromised in some situations. I see very little morality that is absolutely right or wrong in every single circumstance, even something like theft (a little homeless boy stealing a loaf for his younger siblings, for example).

It seems many of my debates circle back to the inerrancy of Scripture, because to debate a topic with opposite understandings concerning its authority ultimately creates misunderstandings in the sentiments of certain arguments. When discussing the Bible, I need to accept on this forum, we are not starting from the same premise.

I think I have valuable insight on some parts - I have been told several times that I should go to seminary. But when one believes the Scripture to be absolute and their understanding of a topic/verse perfect, there is no point in engaging - I already know the argument and they won't listen to mine - seeing how my reason is faulty because it doesn't start from an absolute source.

But if I have came off rude, presumptuous, or puffed up, I apologize. I certainly don't appreciate the same being leveled at me. I am a work in progress, and being slow to speak is still something I am far from mastering.

Blessings.

kenthomas27 · May 13, 2015

Actually Jamie, I've found nothing offensive at all in what you've said. I think you've provided thought provoking sentiments on difficult subjects - of which, I might add, have no definitive answers for the most part. At this site, you'll find a whole plethora of different "kinds" of faith, all of us searching, I think, and growing and evolving. There are many quite sure in their faith and unmoving while others (like me) like hearing other's ideas and rethinking a bigger picture. Honestly, I hope I never stop changing. I don't want to become too sure. I'm not that good.

The only thing I found wrong was when you claimed you overstayed your welcome. I'm a professional at that and you haven't come close, frankly. You seem to me a thoughtful, probing intellectual finding her place in the Body of Christ. If I were to offer a thought, you seem to be .... I guess - searching to define your sense of freedom. I think in order to do that, one has to define what freedom is - and what it costs. We also have to distinguish what we want freedom FROM and what we want the freedom to DO or be. So - like if I wanted to be have financial freedom, some people would advise me to pay down my debts. So I do that, but I ended up buying a new vehicle because I had the extra cash. Other's would advise saving for the future and the future came the other day when I had to pay taxes because I underestimated because I paid off my debts and bought the new vehicle. This doesn't sound like financial freedom.

What Christ teaches me is that real freedom doesn't come the tactic I employ but from a change of heart. The knowledge that God provides me my needs sets me free from the financial burden. Notice I said burden. This doesn't relieve me of any responsibility for my general welfare or permission to aimlessly drift through life because God shall clothe me like he does the birds of the air, bur rather than I'm free of the burden of financial freedom, if that makes sense.

So in effect - the bondage of having Christ is the freedom. It's a complex paradox and I feel your struggle, but our faith sets us free to serve others - which is a complete conundrum! Martin Luther said it best when he said "A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to everyone."

So I guess what I'm saying is your thoughts aren't falling on deaf ears here.

It made me think and I have a headache.

MyLighthouse · May 13, 2015

I haven't seen the thread, but think it's really cool that you were humbled enough to apologize! High five!

Grace-Like-Rain · May 13, 2015

Jamie, I can't imagine that you have offended anyone. We are all on this journey together, and you are certainly very welcome here. I find much of what you have to say insightful and valuable. We can disagree on some issues and still have respect and love for one another. *hugs*

Tintin · May 13, 2015

Jamie, I don't agree with you on a number of things, but I've had more clashes with you in regards to 'origins' discussions than anything else. I believe we must see God's Word as absolute authority, but we must also be humble enough to seek correction where needed and to be willing to listen to other views etc. So I stand by God's Word being perfect, God-breathed, without error (of course, not necessarily the translations) and I'm willing to be corrected to listen to other perspectives. Doesn't mean I'll accept them ever, or without question. But I will endeavour to listen with love and respect in my heart. I've noticed that, while I still don't agree with you on a number of things, more recently, perhaps since you got married, there's been a more gentle spirit about you and your communication and I truly appreciate you and thank you for that. While we sometimes disagree, we're family. You're my sister and I'm your brother. God is good. He is truth. He is love. He is life. He is all we need, everything we need.

jamie26301 · May 13, 2015

kenthomas27 said:

Well, it seems to me that if your truth, your morals, you faith is based on a strict, absolute picture, you will approach day to day life that way too. And that just doesn't work all the time.

Take medicine. Three people have diabetes. Two may require insulin in different doses, and the other may not require it at all with a healthy lifestyle. Take three people with bipolar. One may be prescribed meds and see immediate change, one may need that and therapy, and if it's mild enough the third will only need self-discipline. But notice there's no "one or the other" option of treatment.

Doctors can't afford to think in black and white, absolute right and wrong. The body is too complex. There are gray areas, and even with the most common illnesses, there are special cases. There is no absolute, no EVERY patient is treated thus - maybe a standard method, but I don't believe there is anything for which one thing works or effective for every single person, in every single situation. There is usually more than one "right" way to do something, and it depends on the patient.

I believe the Great Physician treats us the same. There are varying sins we struggle with, and have committed, and varying methods needed to overcome the same things, imo. And with a doctor/patient relationship, another patient does not barge in and tell the other patient how to interpret the doctor's prescription, even if that patient has been prescribed the same thing before. That is between the doctor, who knows the patient's alignment and has far more education, and the patient. Medication 101 - the doctor prescribes you the med, you don't take someone else's medication without consulting the doctor - even if you have the same symptoms. Because only a qualified doctor will be able to detect what dosage you need, or if you need that particular med at all. Many illnesses have the same symptoms.

So if our bodies are so complex that mortal doctors have to critically analyze and prescribe special treatments, how much more would our spirits be in complexity! We will get another body, so how much more valuable and complex our souls must be! And that is why guidance and advice is one thing, but dictating to another how to worship and how to read the Doctor's prescription made out TO THEM... I don't think that's good.

Well, I met the thread and the topic.

I will have to think on that a bit. Initially speaking, I want freedom from man's tyranny of doctrine and idea. Which I think I have, for the most part. It's one thing to say "methinks God says..." It's entirely another to claim to speak absolutely for God, and in such a way that is not to be questioned. The Pope does this, and in that sense, the Catholic Church has my respect more so because at least they teach that the Church guides doctrine. Protestants don't teach that, but they practice that, imo. You hear all the time "my pastor says..." Not all churches, but most of them and it's unnerving to then hear them condemn Catholics. I'm like, "Pot, let me introduce you to..."

Of course, and I do not mean to suggest ceasing the study of Scripture and the like.

Well, I'm not sure what is assumed of me by various folks on here, but I have gone through a period of intense spiritual/mental unrest. When I let go of an absolute understanding of Scripture, I was more comfortable with it. It comforted me more.

Seeing condemnation-like verses in the OT that once terrified me, from guilt, to the point of believing I was literally going to hell. I won't get into all that, but when you allow yourself to see things more abstractly, it is more comforting. Believing that fire and hail will rain on me doesn't tell me what to do, it tells me nothing of God's love, it tells me what to be afraid of. Literal understanding crippled me in fear. Now, it's not that it's funny to me, or not a serious matter, but I get that God is correcting me, not making an appointment in hell for me if I don't get it right.

Now, I don't mean to tell people to not believe in an absolute/literal understanding. They can do that; that's fine. But even studies show that people who believed more in a loving God based on abstract interpretation rather than one who punishes if a certain criteria wasn't met, were better adjusted. I'll quote that later for you.

For me, I think you can draw a lesson from Scripture without it HAVING to be literal... like young children do from certain fables and such. And even if I'm wrong, and we don't literally get another body... well, imo, the lesson is still there that our spirit is more valuable.

Now that's saying something! Even I will shy away from the screen with a headache.

jamie26301 · May 14, 2015

Tintin said:

I appreciate this. May I ask: What is exactly meant by "absolute authority?" I've ascribed to this before, but I don't know, perhaps it was not explained to me properly. I understand under this doctrine that the Bible is not ALL literally true - poetry, prophecy, wisdom and the like. So, I suppose my question is where does the "absolute" start and where does it end? I know that seems silly, but what I mean is how do you apply it as an absolute across cultures? I think that is what trips me up the most.

I respect that. I can see how this stance can instill an unwavering confidence - but confidence is dangerous if not balanced with humility, as you said.

I don't demand anyone do this. But I would appreciate from others the respect of an open ear, as you have, if they want one from me. That's only fair, I think.

I really don't know much. I can write eloquently enough to fool people into thinking I know a lot.

Well, some people. lol

And thank you. You appear a bit more mild too, imo. Blessings!

cinder · May 14, 2015

jamie26301 said:

Ok trying to continue your analogy: truth, morality, and faith aren't the treatment or the prescription: they are the definitions of spiritual health and disease. And just as we can say that diabetes, bi-polar, or the common cold are all diseases and not the normal healthy condition of the human body, so such things can be said of the spiritual state as well. These are the absolutes, both in medicine and in morality.

Actions could be considered the symptoms of the spiritual state, which like the symptoms of a disease need some interpretation. So the impoverished little boy who steals food for his family shouldn't be treated like the spoiled rich teen who steals some clothes just for the thrill. Most people will agree with that. But most people will also agree that just like diabetes isn't a healthy thing for some people and a sickness for others, so stealing isn't a good thing for the little boy to do.

Doctors very often do think more black and white than in the grey area. This is a problem, this is the range of treatment options to try and fix the problem. And sometimes they're wrong or sometimes there is a particular rare cause for a problem someone is having. But there are also some pretty universal medical treatments to improve health such as you should stop smoking, eat more veggies, and get more exercise. If those aren't universally absolute, at least they are correct 99% of the time.

So I'll agree it's the same with God, the definitions of sin don't change (though sometimes things like being kind, showing respect, or even being truthful vary greatly in how they are acted out between cultures) but how and sometimes when God deals with us to free us of the sins we struggle with is an individual thing and perhaps the most important thing is progress towards health rather than immediately matching up to a perfect standard.

Calmador · May 14, 2015

jamie26301 said:

Context Context Context

Example 1

Bob kills Sam

Example 2

David kills John

Both are the same in appearance, but absolutely different in context. Bob is a police officer killing a criminal that was about to shoot Bob. David is a thief about to shoot his victims so he won't get caught.

Example 1 a showing of moral killing... because it was self-defense. (White)

Example 2 is an immoral killing ... because the killing was meant to serve his immoral practice. (Black)

Context changes everything on the inside. The results... don't always tell the whole story.

That might clear up a lot of the "grays" that people get caught up in. Also, it's worth recognizing when a situation is made up of multiple actions... a situation is sometimes called gray but when you divide the situation into actions and judge them rightly... you'll see it wasn't gray after all.

Grey implies a mix of good and evil.... and it's a terrible word to describe context depended morality where in one context the human interaction is morally black and in another it's white.

God Bless

jamie26301 · May 14, 2015

Calmador said:

I understand and agree with this. I get just as upset as the next Christian when Scripture is deliberately, and falsely represented. With the theft example however, I wasn't addressing Scripture so much as I was addressing the absolute understanding applied to some of its commands.

Lynx · May 14, 2015

From Miriam Webster:

Apology
: a statement saying that you are sorry about something : an expression of regret for having done or said something wrong

: something that is said or written to defend something that other people criticize

Apology | Definition of apology by Merriam-Webster

At the start I thought this thread was the first one, but now it seems more like the second.

jamie26301 · May 14, 2015

cinder said:

Well, with sin being the sickness, I meant that the Physician, Jesus, treats with faith, truth, life in the form of His blood. When I speak of absolutes in medicine, I don’t mean that it is subjective as to whether an illness (sin) is bad, but subjective in how it is treated (how one reads the Bible, or other texts concerning Christ, be it commentary or unorthodox texts). And it is subjective in treatment because even though the illness is bad, there are varying severities.

Someone who comes to Christ may struggle intensely with self-control, but not so much having an open ear. Someone else may struggle with unwise impulsive behavior, while being relatively compassionate. We all have different personalities, and with those personalities come different struggles and strengths.

Now most of us agree that one little white lie is all it takes to damn someone, and we are all damned from birth, in terms of doctrine. My analogy is not really to start from birth and then meeting the Physician however many years later. But the point is we all have an immunity system, and that fails us at times, even with the most rigorously kept health plan. We know now that keeping “too clean,” constantly sanitizing (we’ll call this overly righteous behavior and attitudes), that it WEAKENS the immune system. We all have to go to a doctor at one time or another – those who don’t usually regret it, and maybe even die, depending on the illness. And those who are really smart get regular checkups (we’ll call that self-examination, which we do under the guidance of the Spirit in our hearts).

But, I think that’s keeping far too technical. We trip ourselves up when we do this with Jesus’ parables, because they are more to make a general point, which can be applied in more than one situation and more than one way, than they are to establish concrete doctrine. At least, that’s what I think. Not sure what I said could be considered a parable, only that my intent runs along the same lines.

Well, the little boy example is posing the question of theft being wrong or right ALL THE TIME, REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCE which would make it an absolute truth. The purpose of that was not to talk about the spiritual condition, salvation or even the authenticity of Scripture - I was saying that to be consistent, for theft to be ABSOLUTELY wrong, then that boy should be punished, however the degree. He should be declared guilty in court, however light the sentence, there is one. But many people would consider that unjust, because he did nothing wrong in his motives, because they were out of love and concern - but that is the justice of an absolute law… unless I misunderstand what is meant by absolution to begin with.
1)
I could illustrate this with Scripture, and I believe have done so before on this site. King David and his men were fleeing Saul. They came to a place of worship, and they were hungry. By God’s very own law, given to Moses, the showbread is only to be eaten by the priests. That’s plain and simple, as straightforward and as hard to misinterpret as “a man should not sleep with a man.”

David gives his men the showbread. Now, think about this – objectively speaking, he broke God’s law. This law, if you want to apply an absolute understanding to it, should’ve been obeyed even if they had to starve. But he didn’t do that – he wouldn’t let his men starve. He “disobeyed” God, because in the context of that situation, it was the compassionate thing to do – it was the necessary thing to do. And Jesus references this story when the religious leaders challenge His allowing them to break the Sabbath (according to their traditions concerning it). Jesus, it seems to me, was justifying David’s actions. And although we are released from ceremonial law, keep in mind that in King David’s context, it was in full force.
2)
As for the woman in adultery. Objectively speaking, she should not have lived. That is not a manipulation of the Scripture on the religious leaders’ part – that’s plainly what is said and commanded. Yet, it seems to me that the point Jesus made in His judgement is that the judgement they were passing on her had less to do with any real justice (the man is not present for one and it appears they were not going to give her a trial, being caught “red-handed”) and more to do with self-validation and catching Jesus in His teachings. He tells her to sin no more.

And imo, THIS line of the story seems to me to be the most emphasized part when discussing sin and sanctification. Indeed it is important. What is equally important is that JESUS (God, not man) is the one who reminded her of this. Only God can motivate and change the heart. Another thing is that in His reminding her, there was mercy extended and He felt that the story must’ve been far more complicated than made out to be. While the religious leaders’ method of reminding was more about extending wrath and justifying themselves. Jesus exposes that motive by telling them to only stone her if they have not sinned.

And ironically, if I may opine, it seems to me that often those who focus so intently on “sin no more” are the ones holding the stones, in today’s church… when if they really understood Jesus’ words, they would discern that it is only Him who convicts, and in relentlessly perusing someone for a sin or false doctrine, they are in reality condemning themselves. Rebuking is one thing – passing judgement in such a way as to take the authority of punishing upon themselves, through stigma, shunning, etc , is another.

So, I think that in the story of the adulterous woman, the point of objective mortality is blurred by fact that motives have just as much a role in justice is does the sin itself. When the condemnation of a sin is unjust and corrupt, so it the method of dealing with it.

I think 99% is a stark overestimate.

These are gov standards, and in some places that do not follow them nearly as closely as we are told we should, are far healthier.

And “range of treatment OPTIONS” is the point of my analogy, because by the treatment, I meant the doctor/patient relationship that is between them and personal. I mean that the doctor knows what is best for the individual, and the individual trusts that. And yet, the doctor has a body of patients – but deals with each differently, even some with the same illness, according to what each needs.

Precisely. I think in the church, we have a tendency to conclude how much effort is being made towards progress, when that's hard to judge sometimes, esp online.

jamie26301 · May 14, 2015

Lynx said:

... what's your point? I don't understand, and the understanding I assume initially is not one I wish to hold.

Siberian_Khatru · May 14, 2015

jamie26301 said:

My opinion: he's alluding to you justifying yourself rather than apologizing. And honestly, this was my first impression also. I do, however, believe you had good intentions here, and I don't believe you said anything offensive by posing the perspective you did in said thread.

jamie26301 · May 14, 2015

Siberian_Khatru said:

Sure, that's what I thought. I apologized for the way I expressed my ideas, not the ideas themselves. I don't see myself trying to justify being abrasive, but I don't know. I suppose one could come away with the idea I was recanting of sorts. Maybe continuing to justify my ideas, but my ideas was not what I was apologizing for. So, I think it was kinda uncalled for, to be honest, esp when leaving the criticism so vague.

I have a tendency to elaborate, and take an idea and expand beyond necessary. Sometimes whatever is predominately on my mind, I let slip into the topic at hand. Some interpret that as obsessive, but anyone who knows me in real life will tell you that I over-think everything. That is not a justification for how I acted, only that really long, detailed posts are the norm for me, rather than an indication of obsession.

Well, I appreciate that. I do feel convicted about discord and upsetting others, but when it's a thread that *I* started (and so not derailing someone else's topic) and it steers towards discussion which I am naturally inclined to by personality, and that is interpreted as being ulterior to begin with... I just say no one is making anyone else read what I write. If it's offensive enough, by all means, use the ignore button. I understand completely, and it's no skin off my back.

cinder · May 14, 2015

jamie26301 said:

The question then becomes how is sin defined. You have to have a standard of right before you can say that something has gone wrong.

My point was that the boy should still be punished, not severely or punitively, if I was the judge I would probably make him legally responsible to pay the store owner for the price of the loaf of bread. Since he clearly lacks that ability, I would also probably after passing sentence pay that amount for him. Sin always deserves punishment that's justice, mercy and grace take it upon themselves to pay that price or accept the loss.

As for your scripture references, please take the time to look them up and include the whole story (pet peeve of mine) if you're going to reference them in a forum. David and the bread: (1 Sam 21, Lev 22:10-16, Lev 24:5-9, Luke 6:1-5), is interesting to dissect because in the 1 Sam account David is clearly alone but Jesus references companions in Luke 6. The commands about the holy bread and all of the other offerings that were part of the priest's portion were given to the priests, in the form of don't let anyone else eat this. And the Leviticus passages are pretty unclear whether the guilt would rest on the priests for allowing someone else to eat it or if it would rest on that person for eating it. But back to David, the priest on duty gave the bread to him, though under false pretenses as David was lying through his teeth about why he was there at the time. David mentions his men will meet him later, but that seems to be part of his lie and no one is recorded as joining him for quite a few days in the story. Oh and the priest (in fact the whole town of priests) was later killed by Saul for helping David (1 Sam 22). I've never wondered before if that was somehow a judgement on the priest for giving away the sacred offering he had no right to give away….hmmm. As for Jesus referencing it, I don't think he was trying to make a point about the rightness or wrongness of what David did. My interpretation would be that Jesus was trying to point out how nit-picky and hypocritical the Pharisees were. David could blatantly break a law and clearly do something wrong (in the Pharisees eyes), but they still revered David as a good godly man. Yet they're going to say…"Oooh you're harvesting grain that's work." when Jesus disciples grab a little bit of food while walking on the Sabbath. Anyone with a brain should be able to tell the difference between grabbing a few bits of grain to eat while walking and going out to harvest the field.

As for the woman caught in adultery (John 8), the only mention of motives is that the religious leaders wanted to trap Jesus (in fact most of the time when scripture talks about sin it talks about actions not motives). What we see is the same absolutes of sin, justice, and later on mercy that came into play in my hypothetical how to deal with the stealing boy example. Sentence is passed; it is right to stone her: justice (incidentally if you read through the OT law many times when the death penalty is issued, it is to remove the sin committed from the community). The one who has that right is the one who has never sinned, and he's standing right there. He doesn't exercise that right: mercy. But he doesn't say it's all okay or well the situation was complicated so it wasn't really sin. He starkly tells her, "sin no more" implying that she had indeed sinned and it must end. I'm not sure I understand exactly what you think Jesus reminded her of, but I'm uncomfortable with too much only God can influence people talk. God established community and part of the reason for community is accountability, to confront each other when we're wrong and call people out on it. To not let each other get away with sin and think it's no big deal, because it actually is a big deal. It's just that God is bigger and can restore and give second (and third, fourth, and two hundred and second) chances.

Anyway, it's late, I'm tired, and that took longer to write than I expected.

Siberian_Khatru · May 14, 2015

I'm not sure I like where this is going. Abort! Abort!

jamie26301 · May 14, 2015

Ah, thank you. I did misunderstand. But you see how what you said could’ve easily been taken more than one way? That is my problem with exercising the authority of Scripture over another person – you can read it more than one way. Not that some ways aren’t better than others – I don’t advocate the idea that all are valid. Far from it.

Well, there is not a more reliable source, in an either/or sense. I tend to look at it this way. The Spirit dwells in me. The kingdom is within me, as Christ says. If I want to know the truth, be it objective or not, I need to go within. Many don’t like this – it creates a paradox or contradiction, because they say the Holy Spirit indwells you, but the truth is not in you. The truth is in this book that the Spirit explains to you.

And then the next question, naturally, is it is so absolute, and so plain what it says, then how come even conservative minded Christians are split in what they think? They say “plain as day” but they disagree. If you can explain to me why the Spirit would move these to completely different understandings if it wasn’t subjective to begin with, I would be impressed. That’s not a mock, I’m serious. If you can explain how all these churches are rightly deemed Christian, listening to the absolute word of the Spirit, and yet passionately disagree to the point of discord, I would be impressed.

The thing is it is argued that those who don’t take Scripture as inerrant make up their own morality – which is inconsistent to then say God wrote the Ten Commandments and that Law is evident around the world. If I’m making up my own morality, why does my sentiments reflect the Ten?

The other thing that reflects this opposition to individual understanding is that as soon as you say “I can decide for myself what it means” you take power over you away from someone. When someone teaches you that the bible is absolute, there’s only one way to read it, and you’re a babe that doesn’t know where to begin… so so so easy to manipulate and control you, unless you are naturally slanted towards being skeptical of what someone tells you. I know, I’ve been there.

Often when someone passionately opposed internal interpretation, they also come off as controlling in their teaching/preaching. Some of the mildest preachers I’ve heard, where also the most liberal in allowing Christians to think for themselves. Not an absolute rule (I knew a highly conservative, yet patient preacher), but a general rule. And that is enough behavioral manifestations to convince me that absolute interpretation isn’t usually healthy. It’s ok if one wants to believe such, but imo a liberal approach tends to influence more Christ-like behavior.

But what happens when submitting to what it teaches conflicts with other Christians, even on more obscure passages?

Let me tell you an experience. At a difficult time in my life, I dreamed of communing in a Missouri Synod church. An ultra-conservative branch of the American Lutheran church. I was very conservative, then. I would read journals printed by this church, and dream of the Eucharist.

Fast forward seven years. I am visiting my husband (then boyfriend) and it is within my ability to go to a LCMS church. I am aware of closed communion, and their thoughts on being confirmed to go to communion. So, I asked if it would be possible for me to have communion, and he was like “sure, we’ll talk.”

I agreed with everything concerning Communion. I believe Jesus is in, with, and under the bread and wine, I believe it helps regenerate and strengthen me, that there are spiritual blessings. I believe Jesus is the Son of God, fully God/Man, died on a cross and literally rose again. I believe and agree with all this.

I was denied the Supper because I wasn’t entirely sure (I wasn’t even firm on these) about women pastors, gay couples, and other unrelated topics unrelated to the Supper. I had moved away from a steep conservative slant, though what I believe concerning Christ Himself is the same. And I thought it was His table…

It’s not so much that I was surprised, but I won’t lie, that hurt. I didn’t quarrel with him, or challenge his decision – I even went out of my way to say I respected the decision. I even went again next Sunday. I really do enjoy that liturgy.

Maybe you agree with closed Communion. Many people do. One reasoning is to make sure the believer doesn’t hurt themselves, by teaching them proper examination (which I agreed with that aspect, too, btw). And yet… would Jesus condemn a guest at a table, which comes willingly even with an incomplete understanding? “Anyone who comes to Me, I will by no means cast out?” And I am applying this to the traditional understanding of the Real Presence, that Jesus is there and ready to heal and bless. Does it make sense that going to Him would result in judgement… for not thinking that women should be barred from preaching? Could maybe Paul mean something else, because that seems inconsistent with the character of Jesus. But, that is what it says, that is what it means… even though it makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the Gospels. It seems that you end up allowing contradictory understandings, in order to protect a literal reading of the text.

When you stand on an absolute, either/or understanding, it seems to be “ You either accept Christ or you don’t.” So when someone comes confused, and persists in questions, in order to categorize them, they get labeled as refusing to see the Truth – they get rejected, even though they are searching. Because that is the only thing that an absolute understanding of believers – in other words salvation and being saved - will allow. There’s no “well, I see this good in being a believer, but I am concerned with this.” When someone says that, what they “really” mean is “I don’t want to know the Truth.” We don’t think of faith being a transition, but a decision, an instantaneous change, being born again (though I know no mother who ever gave birth instantly). For some, it is quick. And of course, not all Christians or even Protestants ascribe to that – the LCMS doesn’t. But it seems to be a constant in my observation that people who believe in simple, born again or not ideas of salvation, also simplify everything else.

Yes, I support this as well. Bibles are so abundantly in the Western world that it is hard imagining not being allowed to have one.
And yes, the bold makes sense. “Faith comes by hearing.”

This is not what I am saying. This is an extreme picture of what I’m saying. I am for the Bible in that it has many valuable truths that have helped me through life, given me peace, salvation and meaning. I am “against” the Bible in that I think God can communicate in other ways, even if it contradicts the text. Because to me, God is not bound to a text, and He is not bound by human language or ideas.

I used to believe in an absolute understanding. In conjunction with other circumstances, that tortured me. If perfect love casts out fear, then how I was reading it did not contain perfect love. And the reason for this is that there was much stress and fear over understanding it correctly and “dividing it rightly” that it didn’t minister to me as well as it could’ve otherwise. The fear of misunderstanding overridden the message itself.

I am not saying a literal interpretation doesn’t minister (at other times, it did for me as well), but with my particular situation, that understanding aggravated it. That is me, however. Many people point to an experience, or an “aha” kind of moment when they believe Scripture was absolute (unless they were raised such). Well, that was my three year “aha” lol

See, as I understand it, moral relativism is not “anything goes.” That is the stark, black and white thinking I’m talking about. It can’t fit in an absolute, no exceptions slot, so it must be corrupt and horrible through and through.

The absolute understanding cannot see that even though we as Christians don’t have a black and white moral standard/nature in ourselves (we are saved and justified, but we still sin). If there is a sliding scale on sin, would that suggest a sliding scale on morality as well? If the sin varies in severity, wouldn’t the morality and the weight of the law vary to match the sin?

If we are judged according to our deeds, then doesn’t that mean that the punch behind the law would vary? If you would say that theft is absolutely wrong, doesn’t it then cease to be absolutely wrong if the punishment is not absolutely the same either? If the punishment varies, that suggests that the weight of the law varies, and that’s not absolute. Absolute would be exactly the same, across the board. So in punishing the boy, for the moral law to have absolute justice, theft being absolutely wrong, he would have to receive the same penalty as the bank robber or vice versa. Does that make sense? I’m not sure it makes sense to me.

Sure! I can photocopy a Voice of the Martyrs request card where you can request a free copy of Tortured for Christ. Well, actually, I think you can find a request form online. Either way, the book is blood curling.

Well, I hope that you don’t think that because I don’t believe the Bible is an absolute authoritative book (it is good for learning and growing and being corrected), that I know nothing about it or conservative thought. On the contrary, it seems many scholars/believers become liberal because they know it so well.

I will get around to your rebuttals. I wish to say they are interesting and especially with the nit-picking speculation, that makes a lot of sense.

Sorry, I assume most of us are familiar with Scripture and aware of online concordances in which verses can be found almost instantly. Search engines turn up the references instantly too, if you describe the story in a few words.

Perhaps I should be more diligent, but I think if someone is sincerely interested in the context, they will look it up or ask. The texts weren’t divided in chapter and verse for a very long time – that wasn’t their original form so I try not to think of the texts that way. I try to think of Scripture more so in the lessons and spiritual comfort/correction rather than a reference book of morality. While I suppose it’s not safe to assume, if I am challenged, I will certainly produce the chapter and verse. I spent a long time on this post, so if you will, please forgive my not referencing a verse here and there.

Blessings.

Lynx · May 14, 2015

*Lynx looks around...

<.<

>.>

*Lynx drops a Calvin and Hobbes link and runs like mad!

Calvin and Hobbes Comic Strip, February 03, 1991 on GoComics.com

jamie26301 · May 14, 2015

Lynx said:

That's funny. I think it illustrates the frustration behind looking at things differently - the current thought, while maybe still valid, has a rival thought, and the frustration is the belief only one can be right or only one embraced - but in the "grey area" it starts to make sense that maybe there's a bit of truth in both - color is not "real" but it IS real to us and helps us to define the world, and thus navigate it and live together - even though it's not "real" it has real effects. So in a sense, both realities are true.

An apology

Senior Member

kenthomas27

Guest

MyLighthouse

Guest

Senior Member

Tintin

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Folksy yet erudite

Senior Member

Senior Member

Siberian_Khatru

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Siberian_Khatru

Guest

Senior Member

Folksy yet erudite

Senior Member