tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post115636104831249390..comments2024-01-15T05:32:24.873-05:00Comments on The Jon Rowe Archives: Jonathan Rowehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-54478002435295538082009-08-19T01:56:39.585-04:002009-08-19T01:56:39.585-04:00Nice blog. I a also ardent player of WOW GOLD. I l...Nice blog. I a also ardent player of WOW GOLD. I love this game. Nice posting about wow gold. Thanks!Wow Goldhttp://www.randyrun.nonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1422406947251762182009-08-19T01:55:39.507-04:002009-08-19T01:55:39.507-04:00WOW GOLD, nice blog. its worth reading. I liked it...WOW GOLD, nice blog. its worth reading. I liked it very much!Buy Wow Goldhttp://www.randyrun.dknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1157057198082360122006-08-31T16:46:00.000-04:002006-08-31T16:46:00.000-04:00Many thanks for your thoughts Jeremy. I will do s...Many thanks for your thoughts Jeremy. I will do something special with this tomorrow.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1156992450486491622006-08-30T22:47:00.000-04:002006-08-30T22:47:00.000-04:00Paul makes statements to slaves about what their l...Paul makes statements to slaves about what their life should look like given that they are slaves and can't do anything about it. That doesn't constitute endorsement of slavery. That Paul tells slaves how to influence those around them by serving those they are slavery to does not mean that he thinks it's morally ok to own those slaves. It's just that what he says to all Christians (to serve others) applies when you happen to be a slave as well. The only place he addresses a slaveowner is in Philemon, where he strongly implies that Philemon should set Onesimus free as his brother in Christ but thinks it will only be a righteous act if Philemon sees why he should do it and thus doesn't command it outright.<BR/><BR/>I think the slavery issues is more complicated than that, though, and presenting the Bible as simply endorsing slavery without getting into exactly what kind of slavery it's endorsing seems way too quick to me. I've written about this before, so I'll just point you <A HREF="http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2005/02/the_morality_of.html" REL="nofollow">there</A>.<BR/><BR/>On the more general issue, I don't see why inerrantists have to be seen as minimizing passages arbitrarily to make sense of others. Whether it is arbitrary depends on whether there is a plausible contextual limitation on the passage in question. Boswell has few supporters on his contextual limitations of what seem otherwise to be very clear statements. On the other hand, the New Testament very clearly defines the new covenant in such a way that any sense of a Christian nation with laws based on God's law for the old covenant people is just nuts.<BR/><BR/>There are difficulties in how to put together old covenant and new covenant teachings if all scripture is supposed to be fulfilled in Jesus, as Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount. But that doesn't mean that all such ways of putting them together are incoherent. I'll give you <A HREF="http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2004/10/abominations.html" REL="nofollow">one other link</A> for an example of how I've put together some of these issues, including homosexuality, that I don't think involves any arbitrariness is which parts of scripture are interpreting other parts.<BR/><BR/>I tend to agree with you on revolutions, by the way. I think the Christians involved with the American revolution were violating the clear teachings of scripture. I can't see how a Christian who follows the Sermon on the Mount could endorse such a thing.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I do want to say one thing about the Phelps/Rankin issue. Phelps is right insofar as there are some (but few) biblical passages that involve someone hating a person for the person's sin. This occurs in one psalm, and there is that nice "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated" that occurs once in the OT and once in Romans. But I'm not convinced at all that the kind of hate in mind is contradictory with love. We see love and hate as mutually exclusive, but I'm not sure the Hebrew mindset worked that way. The Jacob/Esau bit was clearly not about just some inner attitude but was about how God was disposed to act toward Jacob and Esau. The kind of love that wasn't involved was love that chooses someone to provide for and lead. That doesn't mean there wasn't the kind of love that appreciates the goodness of the creation, the image of God, and so on among those God loves in general. Hating someone in the former sense and loving someone in the latter sense could then coexist.<BR/><BR/>So I'd say that Rankin is right in terms of how he uses the terms for love and hate, and Phelps is thus wrong. But Rankin ought to say something different about the biblical texts to arrive at this view, and he does seem to dismiss hate language too quickly.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1156815976539625902006-08-28T21:46:00.000-04:002006-08-28T21:46:00.000-04:00Most conservative evangelicals adopt a "grammatica...Most conservative evangelicals adopt a "grammatical-historical" approach to interpreting Scripture. <BR/><BR/>Specifically on slavery...<BR/><BR/>'The Gay Species' asserts, based on Paul, that the Bible endorses slavery. And Jon, you seem to take that position as well.<BR/><BR/>The pitfall with these kinds of statements is that when Americans think of "slavery," they conjure up an image of whites enslaving Africans - the institution of slavery that our nation experienced. This is NOT the type of slavery referred to in the Scriptures. <BR/><BR/>Slavery in the Bible is mostly of the indentured servitude variety, and was almost always on a term basis -- 7 years, 14 years, and so forth.<BR/><BR/>Permanent, race-based, comprehensive slavery is NOT endorsed by the Bible. <BR/><BR/>I don't have time tonight to tackle genocide, homosexuality, and all the other stuff raised. Sorry. I'm tired. <BR/><BR/>-Brian Tubbs<BR/>http://briantubbs.blogspot.comBrian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1156446863528202182006-08-24T15:14:00.000-04:002006-08-24T15:14:00.000-04:00"Personally, I'd bet AGAINST a literal interpretat..."Personally, I'd bet AGAINST a literal interpretation, since to bet otherwise would make life today intolerable and irredeemable. It's simply Pascal's Wager morphed to a text."<BR/><BR/>I couldn't have said it better myself.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1156387925638650462006-08-23T22:52:00.000-04:002006-08-23T22:52:00.000-04:00Hermeneutics is treacherous stuff. Reader-response...Hermeneutics is treacherous stuff. Reader-response methods, which are now ubiquitous, can "justify" any and all interpretations.<BR/><BR/>There is NO doubt that the Bible endorses slavery; Saint Paul is clear. A skewed "interpretation" of certain passages can "justifiy" homophobia. But adultery, divorce, and stealing from the poor can NEVER be approved. Indeed, the Scriptures are certain about proscriptions of fornication, adultery, and theft, even if causistry can find elopements on other subjects. Not even "homosexuality" matches fornication, adultery, and theft as far as Yahweh's indignation is concerned.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, the New Testament is quite clear about "judging others." It's categorically prohibited, equal to idolatry, and punished forever in hell.<BR/><BR/>How the "fundamentalist" resolves these tensions in herself is something I cannot begin to fathom. I know for one that I'd much rather be a homosexual (like Jesus and "his beloved," David and Jonathan, etc.) than engage in adultery, fornicate, or steal, especially from the impoverished widowed and orphaned. Those sins cannot be redeemed, whereas the "gay" sins are merely on the margins of consciousness.<BR/><BR/>How the world's 144,000 "saved" will fit into heaven is not my concern, but the biblical literalist better recalculate his odds. His odds are extremely low, if not impossible. But hey, I only "read" what's there, and interpret it to my "satisfaction." But the literalist is not allowed those allowances. What s/he will do in the face of the "literal truth" would scare the Bee-Jeesies out of me. Personally, I'd bet AGAINST a literal interpretation, since to bet otherwise would make life today intolerable and irredeemable. It's simply Pascal's Wager morphed to a text.<BR/><BR/>Calvin's "literal and inerrant Word of God" is the SIN of human arrogance, the PRIDE of human jealousy, the DAMNATION of the righteous and the damned. Where he plucked this "gem" of wisdom only God knows, and maybe that's enough to discredit the whole enterprise. After all, the Incarnation meant to INCLUDE humans in becoming divine, not to exclude them. Why anyone would take such an arrogantly naive stance toward any text is beyond human comprehension, but against a "divine" text makes humanity truly depraved. Maybe that was Calvin's point. A terribly sad and unhopeful point, but a point nonetheless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com