- 1 Tim 2:9--15 -- women should be silent in church and learn in submission
- 1 Tim 3:1--13 -- bishops and deacons can't be remarried -- so much for my prospects of becoming a bishop or deacon.
- 1 Tim 1:10 -- use of the word "sodomite" (in my translation)
However, it's kind of a weak attack to say some part of the Bible is less legitimate than some other part because of its authorship. We have to tackle the bible as a unified whole (for some definition of "unified whole"). If conservatives cite this in support of their position, we need to find some other way to counterargue.
(More later, work calls.)
- - - - - - - -
(2:45 pm) The point being, in spite of my hastily and poorly worded phrasing above, that we can't play parts of the bible against each other based on authorship or time of writing. Even if something wasn't written by Paul but claims to be (the technical term is pseudepigraphal, like "apocryphal", from pseudo- and epigraph), that doesn't matter, because it's all been accepted as part of canon by the early church fathers (who are as much (or almost as much) a part of the development of Christianity as Paul and Jesus were).
(is my compile done yet?)
- - - - - - - -
(4:50 pm) Um, well, maybe that statment about the early church fathers is a little overdone.
(2 May 2006, 9:20 am) See the comments on this entry for more stuff.
(is my compile done yet?)
- - - - - - - -
(4:50 pm) Um, well, maybe that statment about the early church fathers is a little overdone.
(2 May 2006, 9:20 am) See the comments on this entry for more stuff.
3 comments:
...because, by God, conservatives couldn't possibly be right about anything, could they? :)
Aha, I see somebody has discovered http://bloglines.com or something similar.
yeah, this is what i get for posting in haste. The kind of conservatives I'd like to do battle with (when I get better arms (i.e., more bible study)) are those judgemental, overly-harsh, unthinking conservatives that seem so often to be in the headlines giving Christianity a bad name.
Ok, I'll post another comment here.
We talked about false teaching in my bible study class last night, and I claimed that false teaching includes the teaching of judgement (by which I meant human judgement) and anger (and the associated righteous satisfaction).
Some of the folks in my class just didn't see it that way. They don't seem to be able to separate God's judgement from human judgement, although I'm sure that, if pressed, they would certainly say they aren't judging anybody. However, I still see what appears to me to be anger at certain people coupled with anticipated satisfaction when those certain people get what they deserve, and it's all wrapped up in a comfortable blanket of righteousness because they know God is on their side, agreeing with them.
Eh. I'm thinking there's a false teaching in there, somewhere, and a particularly insidioius type.
God judges. We minister. The days of Old Testament instructions to slay every Canaanite man, woman and child (and even their cattle) are over. We don't stand idly by and consider AIDS to be God's judgement on homosexuals while refusing to fund programs that teach condom use, do research in treatments or care for the ill.
Likewise, we don't refuse to act to care for people with the reasoning that something they've done has earned them their misfortune or with the reasoning that we aren't clearly called to act on their behalf. Homeless people, drug addicts.
(Confession: I haven't acted yet. But I will, when my divorce is done.)
Post a Comment