She kinda kills the intellectual meanings of her message with her less then intelligent sounding occasional off topic colorful peppered language. Her opinions on Bush (not relevant), issues with the Catholic church (sounds more like she doesn't like them on a emotional rather then a intellectual or theological reason), not to mention the unneeded swearing (makes one look less then scholarly at the very least) severely in themselves weaken her case.
It is a legitimate argument to bring up when dealing with the Bible without a doubt, unfortunately I have seen the same thing presented much more elegantly (same points, passages, etc.) and with a lot more study of the Biblical passages in question and what they originally mean. It seems that she just borrowed pieces of the original arguments on this topic from others and pasted them in ( and not even covering all the relevant verses either).
Her knowledge of the Bible seems only fair at best, I say this concerning her short commentary on the other Levitical laws, citing some ceremonial and cultural laws met for Mosaic Israel as active for the church today. Not realizing that A) The ceremonial and cultural legalism of the O.T. law ended at the Crucifixion, and B) The Church is not Israel. The point is that any Biblical scholar worth their degree who opposes her view points will easily use these facts to discredit her argument. She should of studied more.
My point isn't that what she said isn't valid or worth looking at, its that it could of been done better, much better. I have seem 'gay affirming' churches argue this with much, much, more elegance. This person will not get anyone to change their minds.
I have to agree. I don't disagree with the primary focus, however, I find it very distracting to go off with commentary that doesn't support the core argument.
One of the greatest reasons, in my mind, to study languages like greek and hebrew, is to be able to go back and read the orginal text of the bible, so you can draw a better, more full understanding of what the God-inspiried works mean.
I believe God still speaks today, to those who listen. You just have to find your own way to hear Him, and what He's saying. And it's different for everyone, really. For me, I find Gods voice clearly speaking to me through music. Sometimes it's christian music, sometimes it's not. But I know that it's a message meant for me to hear.
So? The point in many ways is not to get anyone to change their minds... but to inform those who do already follow the way, and entertain as well. Nobody can -force- a mind to become open... except one-on-one, and only then, if the mind is ready to become open anyway.
Besides. It's her journal. she can write what she wants to. ;)
For the most part, actually, I agree with you on most of your critiques with her post. Which was why my 'subject' was Translation source matters... and not Interesting notes about homosexuals and biblical verse, or similair. The first part (proper translation) was the real purpose of the link, not the second part (homosexuals) for me. :-)
The post was hardly ground-breaking, but was a useful, colourful, and mildly entertaining (I thought) real-world example of how you really have to go back to the original source material before you can talk about, let alone debate or argue about, meanings.
I'd have hunted up a 'better' post as an example, but I ran across this one by accident, and I know far less than even she does about any of the related subjects, having never done more than give cursory glances at most bibles, despite my belief in a higher power. I simply don't know the 'source languages' for any of the various 'holy books' of various religions, and I'd rather not read someone else's interpretation of something like that. Though as an aside, I DO believe in some kind of higher power, I just choose to leave that 'power' unnamed for various reasons I can go into later some time if you'd like.
Thank you for linking that, Wingy. I found it quite stimulating. ^_^ Though I find faults with her argument, it is her journal and it is her view. It makes me want to learn Hebrew even more. Which is generally, at this point, not too feasible. But maybe one day.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
She brings up some interesting points but...
Date: 2003-08-02 06:37 pm (UTC)It is a legitimate argument to bring up when dealing with the Bible without a doubt, unfortunately I have seen the same thing presented much more elegantly (same points, passages, etc.) and with a lot more study of the Biblical passages in question and what they originally mean. It seems that she just borrowed pieces of the original arguments on this topic from others and pasted them in ( and not even covering all the relevant verses either).
Her knowledge of the Bible seems only fair at best, I say this concerning her short commentary on the other Levitical laws, citing some ceremonial and cultural laws met for Mosaic Israel as active for the church today. Not realizing that A) The ceremonial and cultural legalism of the O.T. law ended at the Crucifixion, and B) The Church is not Israel. The point is that any Biblical scholar worth their degree who opposes her view points will easily use these facts to discredit her argument. She should of studied more.
My point isn't that what she said isn't valid or worth looking at, its that it could of been done better, much better. I have seem 'gay affirming' churches argue this with much, much, more elegance. This person will not get anyone to change their minds.
Re: She brings up some interesting points but...
Date: 2003-08-02 08:02 pm (UTC)The orginal text..
Date: 2003-08-02 08:04 pm (UTC)I believe God still speaks today, to those who listen. You just have to find your own way to hear Him, and what He's saying. And it's different for everyone, really. For me, I find Gods voice clearly speaking to me through music. Sometimes it's christian music, sometimes it's not. But I know that it's a message meant for me to hear.
Re: She brings up some interesting points but...
Date: 2003-08-02 08:38 pm (UTC)Besides. It's her journal. she can write what she wants to. ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-03 12:58 am (UTC)The post was hardly ground-breaking, but was a useful, colourful, and mildly entertaining (I thought) real-world example of how you really have to go back to the original source material before you can talk about, let alone debate or argue about, meanings.
I'd have hunted up a 'better' post as an example, but I ran across this one by accident, and I know far less than even she does about any of the related subjects, having never done more than give cursory glances at most bibles, despite my belief in a higher power. I simply don't know the 'source languages' for any of the various 'holy books' of various religions, and I'd rather not read someone else's interpretation of something like that. Though as an aside, I DO believe in some kind of higher power, I just choose to leave that 'power' unnamed for various reasons I can go into later some time if you'd like.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-03 03:35 pm (UTC)Though I find faults with her argument, it is her journal and it is her view. It makes me want to learn Hebrew even more. Which is generally, at this point, not too feasible. But maybe one day.