I agreed with his second view but with a caveat. As I noted there...
I suppose you know that some people (Christians and others) agree with the gist of your second point, but would disagree that God does not want gay folk to marry?
You say, "We must honor God’s Will both because He has authority over us and because He is wise." and that is absolutely true. My whole church would agree with that thought completely.
However, we ALSO think that marriage is a good thing, for gay folk and for straight folk. In short, we don't think the Bible teaches that God is against gay marriage.
So, that might be either a fourth point or a caveat to your Divine Command view, for what it's worth.
"[God] has ordained marriage between one man and one woman, as long taught by both Judaism and Christianity."
Well, then, you can't, actually, agree at all with the second view. You would argue that God has nothing to say about marriage and that Judaism and Christianity has long taught a lie.
Yes, I agree 100% with the notion that we ought to obey God/honor God's will. THAT part, I agree with.
So, you are mistaken to suggest I don't agree with that portion of his comment, because I do. That's just a fact, just the way it is.
I disagree with the writer's conclusion on what God's will is on the subject of gay marriage, but that guy is not God. I seek God's will, not that writer's or even the church's will, on any front where the church is mistaken.
God's will, first and foremost, to the best of our ability.
You would argue that God has nothing to say about marriage and that Judaism and Christianity has long taught a lie.
... or ... would you argue that God has spoken and His divinely disclosed will is that Christianity and Judaism (and every other society throughout history) have been in violation all along and He always intended for marriage to mean "the union of whomever wish to be united"?
(Either way, no matter how you slice it, I don't think you can get away from that malicious swipe at all of history that includes Christianity and Judaism.)
People have been wrong throughout history in many areas. That's not necessarily a "mean swipe," just noting a reality.
Certainly, our founding fathers' positions on owning slaves is reprehensible today, and ideally, they would have stood strongly opposed to it then. But it was a different time and I think we can recognize that.
So, in short, yes, I think those who teach that gay marriage is wrong have been wrong throughout history.
You responded nicely to a parenthetical statement. You're not quite as good at responding to the actual question:
"Would you argue that God has spoken and His divinely disclosed will is that Christianity and Judaism (and every other society throughout history) have been in violation all along and He always intended for marriage to mean 'the union of whomever wish to be united'?"
Would I argue that God has spoken about what? I think God has not addressed gay marriage in the Bible or elsewhere. I think the Bible has not suggested that gay marriage is wrong.
I think the Bible is all over the place in terms of sexual mores (monogamy? Polygamy? Marrying the kidnapped children of your slaughtered enemies?)
It is my supposition that gay marriage is a good thing. I'm not speaking for God, that's just my best guess on a topic that God has been silent upon.
Okay, so the position that you agreed with was "We must honor God’s Will both because He has authority over us and because He is wise." You also affirm that "God has not addressed gay marriage." So, as I understand it, your argument is "Gay marriage is God's will because I think it is" while the rest of us argue "Gay marriage is not God's will because of the Bible uniformly presents marriage as the union of a male and a female and because the Bible uniformly presents homosexual sexual activities as an abomination to God."
Is that an accurate summary? (I didn't ask if you agree that the Bible presents these things as I said it does; I asked if the summary accurately reflects your argument as opposed to our argument.)
This is a question for Dan...I'm not really interested in joining the debates between you and Stan but I do read them and find the dialogue very interesting. So here is the question: do you believe in absolute truth or is truth relative? It seems to me that your view of the Bible is that it is just another good book, where one can pick and choose from it whatever parts they like and discard the rest. The reason I say this is that the verses you try to defend for the homosexual community are really quite clear, yet you explain them away. Please don't take that as an attack, I am really interested in where you go for the truth. I'm afraid you'll answer "it's logic and reasoning". I suppose though I should let you answer.
God knows, breathes and speaks TRUTH absolutely. Were we God or if we had a perfect mind/spirit, we could know God's Perfect Truth perfectly. But we're not perfect in our comprehension of truth.
So, while I believe in absolute truth, I also believe our fallen state prevents us from knowing absolute truth absolutely.
And yes, logic and reason is where we all have to go for truth. It's all we have. Yes, we may revere the Bible as a book of Truth, but we still have to read and rightly comprehend that truth and we are just not perfect.
For those who would suggest that they rely on the Bible, not logic or reason, they are mistaken. You may say, "I'll accept what the Bible has to say, regardless of what reason or logic may say," but even then, they have to reason out their interpretation of the Bible.
When someone says...
"The Bible says that God commanded, 'when you invade the enemy, kill them all, even down to the last child,' then that means that's what God wanted ISRAEL to do, not us..."
That "THEN THAT MEANS" indicates, "I interpret that to mean..." It is not a literal interpretation of the passage, but a reasoned interpretation. No one takes the Bible fully literally, nor should they. We all have to use our reason to sort out how to read the Bible and how to figure out what that means to us.
So, as I understand it, your argument is "Gay marriage is God's will because I think it is" while the rest of us argue "Gay marriage is not God's will because of the Bible uniformly presents marriage as the union of a male and a female and because the Bible uniformly presents homosexual sexual activities as an abomination to God."
Yes, sort of.
1. My argument is I BELIEVE that gay marriage is a good and blessed thing. I THINK God smiles upon the sharing of committed love and family in my marriage and in the marriage of my gay and lesbian friends.
2. I THINK this because the Bible - while it is a bit scattered on matters of sexual morality - seems fairly consistent in the notion of marriage as a Godly, loving way to commit lives together and form families. And, seeing no biblical or logical reason to support straight marriage, but oppose gay marriage, I support gay marriage.
3. "The rest of you" argue that YOU BELIEVE it is God's Will to oppose gay marriage because that is what YOU THINK the Bible suggests in its few passages THAT SEEM TO YOU to be talking about gay marriage.
4. Now, certainly, you don't use all of the "WE THINK," "IT SEEMS TO US" kind of language. You just say "THIS IS what the Bible teaches." However, since none of that language is in the Bible, IT IS, in fact, MERELY WHAT YOU EXTRAPOLATE from those few verses that seem to touch even tangentially on the subject of gay marriage, which IS NOT discussed in the Bible.
Which gets back to my previous response: We ALL use our logic and reasoning to sort out the Bible's teachings and in trying to discern God's Will (especially on matters that aren't talked about in the Bible). The difference is that you all tend not to admit you're using your logic, instead you all (and when I say "YOU ALL" I would include myself 20 years ago) tend to say, "No! No! It's just the way it is. What we believe on the topic is the one and only possible way of interpreting these obvious passages."
But clearly, since there are believers such as myself - saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus the living son of God - who do interpret these passages in another way, then it is NOT the one and only possible way to interpret it. Reality shows that not to be the case. I am, after all, interpreting it differently.
Herein lies the problem, doesn't it? "I believe" the Bible is abundantly clear about both marriage and homosexual behavior. "You believe" it is not. I believe what I believe because it's what I see there plainly, and you don't.
Fine. Let's go another step. "I believe" the Bible teaches that Christ is the only way and that only through faith in His atoning death and resurrection can we be saved. (I'm thinking you agree.) "Ted believes" (Ted is my favorite fictional character name) that the Bible does not teach that and that there are many ways to heaven and lots of Christians agree with him so ... it's equally true ... or it's merely a difference of interpretation ... or ... what?
My question is at what point does it become a problem? Using my careful logic and keen sense of reasoning, I interpret the Bible to say, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." You interpret that ... different. Why do think that we "tend not to admit you're using your logic"? Because the logic is built in from the prior conclusion that the Bible says what it means. If there is no reason for me NOT to take it at face value, I will take it at face value. ("Reason for me NOT to take it at face value" would have to be something like "clearly contradicts another passage".) So I take it at face value and you don't and I'm using my logic when I do it and so are you ... but we are not using the same starting point. So ... when does it become a problem?
If there is no reason for me NOT to take it at face value, I will take it at face value. ("Reason for me NOT to take it at face value" would have to be something like "clearly contradicts another passage".) So I take it at face value and you don't and I'm using my logic when I do it and so are you
I agree and this is true for me, too. If there is no reason NOT to take a passage at face value, I take it at face value.
Thus, when Jesus says, "Woe to you who are rich!" I think he means just that. When James says, "Is it not the rich you are oppressing you?" I think it means just that. When Jesus says, "blessed are the poor," I think he means just that.
This line of thinking is in line with rest of scripture and it makes sense (albeit somewhat disturbing for we who are rich) in context.
But it is not just "clearly contradicting other scripture," that would cause me to not take something at face value. Conflicting with an internal sense of justice (God's Law, written upon our hearts - flawed but real) ought to at least raise red flags. Or, in trying to understand the context and it seems the context is talking about something other than what our (or my) traditional understanding is, that would raise a red flag.
There is no perfect way to read the Scriptures or to seek God's will, the best we can do is to strive to do so humbly and prayerfully, it seems to me.
And so, when I read a passage where God commands people to slaughter children - even though that is not directly contradicted in the rest of the Bible - it DOES conflict with an internal sense of right/wrong (ie, God's Word, written upon our hearts, or perhaps the Holy Spirit speaking to us) and it does conflict with more general biblical precepts (against shedding innocent blood, for instance).
So, we both take such passages at face value EXCEPT when there are red flags raised for one reason or another. We just disagree that there are any red flags on reading that particular passage at face value.
So, when does it become a problem? I would suggest when it is contradicting some more fundamental/essential teaching of Jesus. We WILL disagree over specific actions, as to whether or not they are sins. It happens all the time. While not ideal, it is just a fact of our flawed humanity. But, it seems to me that as long as it's not an essential teaching, we need to put up with our disagreements, continue to discuss the topic and have disagreements if that happens, but do so in love, as in a family dispute.
(Just curious ... where does Jesus say, "Blessed are the poor"?)
Dan Trabue: "Conflicting with an internal sense of justice ..."
Ah, there, see? For me, my "internal sense of justice" needs to be constantly realigned (the biblical phrase I'm thinking of is "be transformed by the renewal of your mind"). For you, your "internal sense of justice" is sufficient means by which you can judge God's Word. No, no, I don't mean that as harshly as it sounds. The means by which you can judge the Bible (and all else, I assume). In the end, then, you have a much higher confidence in your reasoning and "sense of judgment" than I have in mine.
As for when it becomes a problem, would my fictitious Ted be in trouble in your view?
Re: Where does Jesus say, "Blessed are the poor?", I am curious about something and wondered if you'd mind answering it - you could respond in an email if you'd like, since it's off topic...
Is it the case that you didn't know that one of the two Sermons of Jesus in the bible used that language?
I know that it's true that some churches REALLY emphasize Matthew's description ("Blessed are the poor in spirit...") to the exclusion of Luke's and I didn't know if that was the case with you or if you had some other reason for asking...
It seems that saying "Blessed are the poor." period, is too radical/anti-capitalism or class warfare-ish or some sort of idea and I was wondering if it's the case that you honestly hadn't ever heard that presented in any of your church-years or personal bible study or if you had some other point...?
Again, you can respond in email if you'd like - this sounds a little snarkish to me in reading it and I'm honestly not trying to sound that way, I'm just curious about your question.
For you, your "internal sense of justice" is sufficient means by which you can judge God's Word. No, no, I don't mean that as harshly as it sounds. The means by which you can judge the Bible (and all else, I assume). In the end, then, you have a much higher confidence in your reasoning and "sense of judgment" than I have in mine.
No, my reasoning is ONE tool in my tool belt, as it is with you. I don't know that we have any significant disagreement on this point.
We both acknowledge that our reasoning is faulty, being human. We both consider the Bible to be a source of God's Truth. We both recognize that we must rightly divide the Bible and to do this, we must use our faulty reasoning. We both recognize God as the final authority on what is right and wrong. I think we both agree that we can't always perfectly know God's ways, again, due to our human nature.
I'm just acknowledging that ONE thing that can raise a red flag on hearing SOME HUMAN's interpretation of a verse is its compatibility with other scripture. Another thing that can raise a red flag is if it conflicts with some basic human intuition (If someone claims that we ought to slaughter Iranian children, you don't really need a Bible verse to know that that is wrong, do you?).
I'm not talking about my or your logic as a perfect and final word, I'm saying that it IS, in fact, what we use to read the Bible and seek God's will. What else is there?
Because the one I saw said "Blessed are the poor in spirit". I never noticed the Luke 6 difference. You enlightened me. So, apparently Jesus taught that to be physically poor resulted in blessing. As such, it would behoove all of us to sell all we have and become poor and hungry so we can be blessed.
I am fascinated that your first guess is "saying 'Blessed are the poor.' period, is too radical/anti-capitalism." Sounds really conspiratorial. Since I tend to think that "poor" or "rich" or "white" or "capitalist" or whatever earthly condition is not in itself grounds for God's favor ("blessed"), I would think that a full reading of "poor in spirit" would be more accurate, but, hey, your conclusion that I'm a mere capitalist for thinking so is your conclusion.
Dan Trabue: "I'm saying that it IS, in fact, what we use to read the Bible and seek God's will. What else is there?"
Well, for me, the plain, simple text. But, hey, that's just me. I don't find, for instance, any plain simple text that tells me to kill all Iranian children. If someone tells me it's there, they're lying. It's not "logic" or "internal sense of justice" -- it's basic reading skills. It's not there.. Now, wouldn't it be nice if there really was nothing on marriage or homosexual sex ... but there is, so I'm bound by it. Fancy logic? Careful "internal sense of justice"? No. Plain text.
So, the plain, simple text of Luke 6 says that the poor are blessed. Period. Do you accept that at face value?
The plain, simple text says plainly and simply that we should kill disrespectful children. Do you take that at face value? It is not contradicted or set aside anywhere at all in the Bible. The very first word we get about disrespectful children is that they are to be killed. That law is NEVER set aside in other scripture. So then, since you only use the plain simple text, you must believe that it is correct to kill disrespectful children, yes?
The fact is, you DO use your reasoning, like it or not. Not every passage passes the "plain, simple text" criteria very well.
You, after all, appear to be setting aside the plain simple text of Jesus very own words.
Since Luke 6 appears to contradict Matthew 5, we have a problem. But, hey, we'll go with whatever makes you feel better.
And you err greatly in regards to killing disrespectful children when you say, "It is not contradicted or set aside anywhere at all in the Bible." It is contradicted when Rom. 13 says we operate under civil government. Since civil government doesn't allow it, it's not my call. If civil government allowed it, I'd still be stuck with the text, which has an entire process included ("Take before the city elders" etc.) and I'd be back to Rom. 13 again.
Not every text passes the "plain and simple" test ... you and I agree on that. What we do not agree on is what makes some less plain and simple. I get bogged down in language and meaning and you get bogged down in "it violates my sense of right and wrong."
20 comments:
I agreed with his second view but with a caveat. As I noted there...
I suppose you know that some people (Christians and others) agree with the gist of your second point, but would disagree that God does not want gay folk to marry?
You say, "We must honor God’s Will both because He has authority over us and because He is wise." and that is absolutely true. My whole church would agree with that thought completely.
However, we ALSO think that marriage is a good thing, for gay folk and for straight folk. In short, we don't think the Bible teaches that God is against gay marriage.
So, that might be either a fourth point or a caveat to your Divine Command view, for what it's worth.
"[God] has ordained marriage between one man and one woman, as long taught by both Judaism and Christianity."
Well, then, you can't, actually, agree at all with the second view. You would argue that God has nothing to say about marriage and that Judaism and Christianity has long taught a lie.
Yes, I agree 100% with the notion that we ought to obey God/honor God's will. THAT part, I agree with.
So, you are mistaken to suggest I don't agree with that portion of his comment, because I do. That's just a fact, just the way it is.
I disagree with the writer's conclusion on what God's will is on the subject of gay marriage, but that guy is not God. I seek God's will, not that writer's or even the church's will, on any front where the church is mistaken.
God's will, first and foremost, to the best of our ability.
You would argue that God has nothing to say about marriage and that Judaism and Christianity has long taught a lie.
... or ... would you argue that God has spoken and His divinely disclosed will is that Christianity and Judaism (and every other society throughout history) have been in violation all along and He always intended for marriage to mean "the union of whomever wish to be united"?
(Either way, no matter how you slice it, I don't think you can get away from that malicious swipe at all of history that includes Christianity and Judaism.)
People have been wrong throughout history in many areas. That's not necessarily a "mean swipe," just noting a reality.
Certainly, our founding fathers' positions on owning slaves is reprehensible today, and ideally, they would have stood strongly opposed to it then. But it was a different time and I think we can recognize that.
So, in short, yes, I think those who teach that gay marriage is wrong have been wrong throughout history.
You responded nicely to a parenthetical statement. You're not quite as good at responding to the actual question:
"Would you argue that God has spoken and His divinely disclosed will is that Christianity and Judaism (and every other society throughout history) have been in violation all along and He always intended for marriage to mean 'the union of whomever wish to be united'?"
Would I argue that God has spoken about what? I think God has not addressed gay marriage in the Bible or elsewhere. I think the Bible has not suggested that gay marriage is wrong.
I think the Bible is all over the place in terms of sexual mores (monogamy? Polygamy? Marrying the kidnapped children of your slaughtered enemies?)
It is my supposition that gay marriage is a good thing. I'm not speaking for God, that's just my best guess on a topic that God has been silent upon.
Okay, so the position that you agreed with was "We must honor God’s Will both because He has authority over us and because He is wise." You also affirm that "God has not addressed gay marriage." So, as I understand it, your argument is "Gay marriage is God's will because I think it is" while the rest of us argue "Gay marriage is not God's will because of the Bible uniformly presents marriage as the union of a male and a female and because the Bible uniformly presents homosexual sexual activities as an abomination to God."
Is that an accurate summary? (I didn't ask if you agree that the Bible presents these things as I said it does; I asked if the summary accurately reflects your argument as opposed to our argument.)
This is a question for Dan...I'm not really interested in joining the debates between you and Stan but I do read them and find the dialogue very interesting. So here is the question: do you believe in absolute truth or is truth relative? It seems to me that your view of the Bible is that it is just another good book, where one can pick and choose from it whatever parts they like and discard the rest. The reason I say this is that the verses you try to defend for the homosexual community are really quite clear, yet you explain them away. Please don't take that as an attack, I am really interested in where you go for the truth. I'm afraid you'll answer "it's logic and reasoning". I suppose though I should let you answer.
I believe in absolute truth.
God knows, breathes and speaks TRUTH absolutely. Were we God or if we had a perfect mind/spirit, we could know God's Perfect Truth perfectly. But we're not perfect in our comprehension of truth.
So, while I believe in absolute truth, I also believe our fallen state prevents us from knowing absolute truth absolutely.
And yes, logic and reason is where we all have to go for truth. It's all we have. Yes, we may revere the Bible as a book of Truth, but we still have to read and rightly comprehend that truth and we are just not perfect.
For those who would suggest that they rely on the Bible, not logic or reason, they are mistaken. You may say, "I'll accept what the Bible has to say, regardless of what reason or logic may say," but even then, they have to reason out their interpretation of the Bible.
When someone says...
"The Bible says that God commanded, 'when you invade the enemy, kill them all, even down to the last child,' then that means that's what God wanted ISRAEL to do, not us..."
That "THEN THAT MEANS" indicates, "I interpret that to mean..." It is not a literal interpretation of the passage, but a reasoned interpretation. No one takes the Bible fully literally, nor should they. We all have to use our reason to sort out how to read the Bible and how to figure out what that means to us.
Do you disagree?
Stan asked...
So, as I understand it, your argument is "Gay marriage is God's will because I think it is" while the rest of us argue "Gay marriage is not God's will because of the Bible uniformly presents marriage as the union of a male and a female and because the Bible uniformly presents homosexual sexual activities as an abomination to God."
Yes, sort of.
1. My argument is I BELIEVE that gay marriage is a good and blessed thing. I THINK God smiles upon the sharing of committed love and family in my marriage and in the marriage of my gay and lesbian friends.
2. I THINK this because the Bible - while it is a bit scattered on matters of sexual morality - seems fairly consistent in the notion of marriage as a Godly, loving way to commit lives together and form families. And, seeing no biblical or logical reason to support straight marriage, but oppose gay marriage, I support gay marriage.
3. "The rest of you" argue that YOU BELIEVE it is God's Will to oppose gay marriage because that is what YOU THINK the Bible suggests in its few passages THAT SEEM TO YOU to be talking about gay marriage.
4. Now, certainly, you don't use all of the "WE THINK," "IT SEEMS TO US" kind of language. You just say "THIS IS what the Bible teaches." However, since none of that language is in the Bible, IT IS, in fact, MERELY WHAT YOU EXTRAPOLATE from those few verses that seem to touch even tangentially on the subject of gay marriage, which IS NOT discussed in the Bible.
Which gets back to my previous response: We ALL use our logic and reasoning to sort out the Bible's teachings and in trying to discern God's Will (especially on matters that aren't talked about in the Bible). The difference is that you all tend not to admit you're using your logic, instead you all (and when I say "YOU ALL" I would include myself 20 years ago) tend to say, "No! No! It's just the way it is. What we believe on the topic is the one and only possible way of interpreting these obvious passages."
But clearly, since there are believers such as myself - saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus the living son of God - who do interpret these passages in another way, then it is NOT the one and only possible way to interpret it. Reality shows that not to be the case. I am, after all, interpreting it differently.
Herein lies the problem, doesn't it? "I believe" the Bible is abundantly clear about both marriage and homosexual behavior. "You believe" it is not. I believe what I believe because it's what I see there plainly, and you don't.
Fine. Let's go another step. "I believe" the Bible teaches that Christ is the only way and that only through faith in His atoning death and resurrection can we be saved. (I'm thinking you agree.) "Ted believes" (Ted is my favorite fictional character name) that the Bible does not teach that and that there are many ways to heaven and lots of Christians agree with him so ... it's equally true ... or it's merely a difference of interpretation ... or ... what?
My question is at what point does it become a problem? Using my careful logic and keen sense of reasoning, I interpret the Bible to say, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." You interpret that ... different. Why do think that we "tend not to admit you're using your logic"? Because the logic is built in from the prior conclusion that the Bible says what it means. If there is no reason for me NOT to take it at face value, I will take it at face value. ("Reason for me NOT to take it at face value" would have to be something like "clearly contradicts another passage".) So I take it at face value and you don't and I'm using my logic when I do it and so are you ... but we are not using the same starting point. So ... when does it become a problem?
Stan said:
If there is no reason for me NOT to take it at face value, I will take it at face value. ("Reason for me NOT to take it at face value" would have to be something like "clearly contradicts another passage".) So I take it at face value and you don't and I'm using my logic when I do it and so are you
I agree and this is true for me, too. If there is no reason NOT to take a passage at face value, I take it at face value.
Thus, when Jesus says, "Woe to you who are rich!" I think he means just that. When James says, "Is it not the rich you are oppressing you?" I think it means just that. When Jesus says, "blessed are the poor," I think he means just that.
This line of thinking is in line with rest of scripture and it makes sense (albeit somewhat disturbing for we who are rich) in context.
But it is not just "clearly contradicting other scripture," that would cause me to not take something at face value. Conflicting with an internal sense of justice (God's Law, written upon our hearts - flawed but real) ought to at least raise red flags. Or, in trying to understand the context and it seems the context is talking about something other than what our (or my) traditional understanding is, that would raise a red flag.
There is no perfect way to read the Scriptures or to seek God's will, the best we can do is to strive to do so humbly and prayerfully, it seems to me.
And so, when I read a passage where God commands people to slaughter children - even though that is not directly contradicted in the rest of the Bible - it DOES conflict with an internal sense of right/wrong (ie, God's Word, written upon our hearts, or perhaps the Holy Spirit speaking to us) and it does conflict with more general biblical precepts (against shedding innocent blood, for instance).
So, we both take such passages at face value EXCEPT when there are red flags raised for one reason or another. We just disagree that there are any red flags on reading that particular passage at face value.
So, when does it become a problem? I would suggest when it is contradicting some more fundamental/essential teaching of Jesus. We WILL disagree over specific actions, as to whether or not they are sins. It happens all the time. While not ideal, it is just a fact of our flawed humanity. But, it seems to me that as long as it's not an essential teaching, we need to put up with our disagreements, continue to discuss the topic and have disagreements if that happens, but do so in love, as in a family dispute.
(Just curious ... where does Jesus say, "Blessed are the poor"?)
Dan Trabue: "Conflicting with an internal sense of justice ..."
Ah, there, see? For me, my "internal sense of justice" needs to be constantly realigned (the biblical phrase I'm thinking of is "be transformed by the renewal of your mind"). For you, your "internal sense of justice" is sufficient means by which you can judge God's Word. No, no, I don't mean that as harshly as it sounds. The means by which you can judge the Bible (and all else, I assume). In the end, then, you have a much higher confidence in your reasoning and "sense of judgment" than I have in mine.
As for when it becomes a problem, would my fictitious Ted be in trouble in your view?
Where does Jesus say, "blessed are the poor?" Luke 6.
And raising his eyes toward his disciples he said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God is yours.
Blessed are you who are now hungry, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who are now weeping, for you will laugh.
Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man.
Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way.
But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
Why do you ask?
Re: Where does Jesus say, "Blessed are the poor?", I am curious about something and wondered if you'd mind answering it - you could respond in an email if you'd like, since it's off topic...
Is it the case that you didn't know that one of the two Sermons of Jesus in the bible used that language?
I know that it's true that some churches REALLY emphasize Matthew's description ("Blessed are the poor in spirit...") to the exclusion of Luke's and I didn't know if that was the case with you or if you had some other reason for asking...
It seems that saying "Blessed are the poor." period, is too radical/anti-capitalism or class warfare-ish or some sort of idea and I was wondering if it's the case that you honestly hadn't ever heard that presented in any of your church-years or personal bible study or if you had some other point...?
Again, you can respond in email if you'd like - this sounds a little snarkish to me in reading it and I'm honestly not trying to sound that way, I'm just curious about your question.
For you, your "internal sense of justice" is sufficient means by which you can judge God's Word. No, no, I don't mean that as harshly as it sounds. The means by which you can judge the Bible (and all else, I assume). In the end, then, you have a much higher confidence in your reasoning and "sense of judgment" than I have in mine.
No, my reasoning is ONE tool in my tool belt, as it is with you. I don't know that we have any significant disagreement on this point.
We both acknowledge that our reasoning is faulty, being human. We both consider the Bible to be a source of God's Truth. We both recognize that we must rightly divide the Bible and to do this, we must use our faulty reasoning. We both recognize God as the final authority on what is right and wrong. I think we both agree that we can't always perfectly know God's ways, again, due to our human nature.
I'm just acknowledging that ONE thing that can raise a red flag on hearing SOME HUMAN's interpretation of a verse is its compatibility with other scripture. Another thing that can raise a red flag is if it conflicts with some basic human intuition (If someone claims that we ought to slaughter Iranian children, you don't really need a Bible verse to know that that is wrong, do you?).
I'm not talking about my or your logic as a perfect and final word, I'm saying that it IS, in fact, what we use to read the Bible and seek God's will. What else is there?
"Why do you ask?"
Because the one I saw said "Blessed are the poor in spirit". I never noticed the Luke 6 difference. You enlightened me. So, apparently Jesus taught that to be physically poor resulted in blessing. As such, it would behoove all of us to sell all we have and become poor and hungry so we can be blessed.
I am fascinated that your first guess is "saying 'Blessed are the poor.' period, is too radical/anti-capitalism." Sounds really conspiratorial. Since I tend to think that "poor" or "rich" or "white" or "capitalist" or whatever earthly condition is not in itself grounds for God's favor ("blessed"), I would think that a full reading of "poor in spirit" would be more accurate, but, hey, your conclusion that I'm a mere capitalist for thinking so is your conclusion.
Dan Trabue: "I'm saying that it IS, in fact, what we use to read the Bible and seek God's will. What else is there?"
Well, for me, the plain, simple text. But, hey, that's just me. I don't find, for instance, any plain simple text that tells me to kill all Iranian children. If someone tells me it's there, they're lying. It's not "logic" or "internal sense of justice" -- it's basic reading skills. It's not there.. Now, wouldn't it be nice if there really was nothing on marriage or homosexual sex ... but there is, so I'm bound by it. Fancy logic? Careful "internal sense of justice"? No. Plain text.
Well, for me, the plain, simple text.
So, the plain, simple text of Luke 6 says that the poor are blessed. Period. Do you accept that at face value?
The plain, simple text says plainly and simply that we should kill disrespectful children. Do you take that at face value? It is not contradicted or set aside anywhere at all in the Bible. The very first word we get about disrespectful children is that they are to be killed. That law is NEVER set aside in other scripture. So then, since you only use the plain simple text, you must believe that it is correct to kill disrespectful children, yes?
The fact is, you DO use your reasoning, like it or not. Not every passage passes the "plain, simple text" criteria very well.
You, after all, appear to be setting aside the plain simple text of Jesus very own words.
Since Luke 6 appears to contradict Matthew 5, we have a problem. But, hey, we'll go with whatever makes you feel better.
And you err greatly in regards to killing disrespectful children when you say, "It is not contradicted or set aside anywhere at all in the Bible." It is contradicted when Rom. 13 says we operate under civil government. Since civil government doesn't allow it, it's not my call. If civil government allowed it, I'd still be stuck with the text, which has an entire process included ("Take before the city elders" etc.) and I'd be back to Rom. 13 again.
Not every text passes the "plain and simple" test ... you and I agree on that. What we do not agree on is what makes some less plain and simple. I get bogged down in language and meaning and you get bogged down in "it violates my sense of right and wrong."
Post a Comment