Reply to Episcopal diocese of Washington to drop male pronouns for God

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Episcopal diocese of Washington to drop male pronouns for God"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

The argument that Paul was “straightforward” and that his letters were included in the Bible by the early church aren’t enough reason for many Christians to take him literally in addition to seriously. Plenty of writers are straightforward, starting with our current and past presidents, but that doesn’t mean we agree with everthing a straightforward writer says. This throws us back on your argument that his writings were included in the New Testament by the early church and therefore should be accorded special status, but many disagree with this argument, too. As PP says, many argue that Paul was speaking specifically to the first century developing church.

The gospels—witness writings of Jesus’ sayings—have a much higher status to many Christians.

Regarding shellfish, the original question posed to you concerned other parts of Leviticus, for example, not mixing different types of cloth in your outfit, or trimming your beard. You can google “lists of Leviticus rules.” The passages about “it’s not what goes in your mouth but what comes out of your mouth” are indeed beautiful and revolutionary, and I presume most Christians here are already familiar with them. The problem for a literalist Christian, however, is that Jesus’ abolition of dietary rules didn’t address these other rules.

You accuse other Christians of “picking and choosing,” but if you condemn sodomy based on the OT, yet your DH trims his beard or you wear polyester with cotton on the same day, then you’re doing the same “picking and choosing.”[/quote]
That's just the thing... sodomy is condemned in the New Testament. It's just that you see that, don't like it, and then claim that the books written by Paul aren't binding Christian doctrine. No better example of picking and choosing could be had.[/quote]

It looks like you don’t plan to answer the question about beards and mixing fabrics? At least the people who take Paul “seriously but not literally” have mustered various arguments about why (Paul is talking in a specific historical context; his letters are pastoral; he’s not divine). Your picking and choosing among Old Testament rules (no sodomy but groom yourself as you like) seems like more brazen picking and choosing.[/quote]
I actually gave a rather long answer addressing this. Picking the topic of shellfish was an [i]example[/i]. When I originally responded to this line of argument, I mentioned that this is all addressed in various books of the New Testament, among them Acts, Romans, Galatians and especially Hebrews. I am certain you have not actually read the Bible, nor taken the attempt to understand in these books how the new covenant of Christ replaced the old covenant of the law, and how it was always intended by God to be that way. Christ more than once corrected the Pharisees' unscriptural misunderstanding of the law, in more contexts than just shellfish. You are being deliberately obtuse and not bothering to engage with the larger points of Jewish law and the covenant of New Testament grace based on faith, nor on how the Bible explicitly says that much of the Old Testament law is not binding on Gentiles. And then, where the New Testament does touch on things that are considered eternally sinful by the LORD, you say those writings don't count. Your entire line of reasoning boils down to, "Well what about THIS, huh? huh?" You don't believe. That's your prerogative. I'm sure I won't convince you. I write these responses so that anyone reading this who does wish to understand the topic can have something to put some attention toward.[/quote]

I have read the Bible, and I don’t know where you get off saying you’re “pretty sure” I haven’t. Also, I read your piece and found you unconvincing. It’s not that I don’t “want” to see the purported wisdom of your arguments, it’s just that I not only disagree, but I find some of your arguments illogical and/or hypocritical.

The least of your hypocrisy is your snarky, unChristian voice in your posts. [/quote]

DP here, what about the new covenant argument?

During the Eucharist for Epsicopalians, there's always mention of the new covenent. https://www.bcponline.org/HE/he2.html[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics