|
Post by susan on Jan 23, 2010 14:53:42 GMT -5
gensgems.wordpress.com/Have any of you heard of this woman and what she went through, as a member of Doug Phillips's housechurch? When her husband became angry, abusive, and threatening, she turned to church leadership for help, and was told the problems were being caused by her because she wasn't submissive enough. Things just got worse and worse, while leadership tried to persuade both her and her husband that her sins were the whole issue. They finally got out (after Doug Phillips excommunicated them), and it sounds like her husband was able to get the help he needed because they are still together, and he is supporting her telling the whole story including the stuff that makes him look really bad. Some Christians are criticizing her for going public with her story. They don't understand why this kind of abuse needs to be exposed. I am now understanding better why some Atheists like Sam Harris feel that the more moderate religious people actually tend to shield the abusive elements of their religion, and allow them to flourish. The more moderate, tolerant, loving Christians, nevertheless hesitate to expose the "wolves in sheep's clothing." And accuse the Christians who DO expose them of being "unforgiving" and staying focused on the wrongs of the past rather than "moving on."
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Jan 23, 2010 19:04:28 GMT -5
As a liberal Christian, I agree with you that moderate and liberal Christians don't do nearly enough criticizing conservative Christianity. I think there's a general assumption that they're "nice church people who just believe a little differently than we do" and can't possibly be that bad. I'd really like to see that change, especially since I've come to believe that major aspects of evangelical and traditional Catholic doctrine (all the stuff on sex) are intrinsically spiritually abusive.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Jan 24, 2010 5:21:10 GMT -5
Susan,
I agree with you that Christians ought to expose abusive interpretations of Scripture. But, try as we may, we will never do away with fundamentalism (or selective literalism). People hang on very tightly to literal interpretations that suit them!
I don't know this woman's story. I tried to read through some of it a couple years ago, but I was getting in over my head .
I find it a lot more useful to discuss the actual doctrines and support the discussion with examples of how they have caused harm, rather than use a person's story to attack the doctrine. While using personal experiences may help keep some from embracing the doctrine, I don't think they will help those promoting the doctrine from doing so. As we've seen here, their argument is always that whoever is sharing their experience didn't do it "right", but that doesn't make the doctrine faulty. Use the Bible to refute their doctrine, and you're more likely to get both adherents of the doctrine and people considering it to look at the Bible themselves.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 24, 2010 14:39:42 GMT -5
Madame, what gets me is that I've read the whole Bible, and I can't honestly say that the people at Vision Forum are directly contradicting Scripture.
Because much of Scripture does seem, to me, to have a pretty misogynistic tone to it.
For me, now that I'm a liberal Christian, it's easy enough to look at it in the cultural context and just accept that the writers had limited perspectives -- that they were misogynistic but that doesn't mean God is. I don't feel a need to uphold all Scriputure as inerrant.
At the same time, I do struggle with the fact that the Church never, or hardly ever, seems to lead the way in upholding human rights. It seems like the Church usually fights progress until it can't fight it any more, and then it either "evolves" a little to adapt to the changing society --
Or, in the case of very fundamentalist churches, it isolates itself and tries to build up an army to fight the world and enforce what it sees as God's agenda.
I see your point about looking at the doctrine and pointing out how it causes harm -- but of course learning about the way that it causes harm, does involve looking at people's stories.
And you're right that the fundamentalists just insist that the problem is not the teaching -- but rather that certain individuals are getting it wrong.
It seems like what it takes is a LOT of people being willing to come forward and share their stories about how they really did their best to do it "right," and it still really backfired on them. Kind of like what Vyckie and many others are doing here.
As far as this woman, Jen, she still seems to be a Christian, and I think she does do a lot of the Scriptural analysis you are talking about. I can't get as much into that, though, because to me it seems like so much bending-over-backwards to be able to say that certain verses that SEEM misogynistic, really AREN'T.
Whereas it makes more sense to me to call a spade a spade, and just worship God and not the Bible, and be willing to read the Bible as a book containing some words from God, but also some human error. To me, that's what being discerning is all about.
But I agree with you that some folks aren't ready to step out in faith (and rationality) like that -- and so the bending-over-backwards can actually be helpful to them in being able to stay fundamentalist, while letting go of the misogyny.
|
|
mara
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by mara on Jan 25, 2010 12:33:10 GMT -5
Susan: "Madame, what gets me is that I've read the whole Bible, and I can't honestly say that the people at Vision Forum are directly contradicting Scripture."
I see what you are saying, Susan. But where I see that they are directly contradicting scripture, more essentially, the words of Jesus Christ Himself, is where they violate...
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
This foundational nugget of Truth is completely lost on them.
They don't get what it is really about. They are rule keepers. Not God lovers.
None of these men would want done to them what they do freely to women with self-rightous, reckless abandon.
They are sick and in need of a Healer.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 25, 2010 14:01:07 GMT -5
Susan: "Madame, what gets me is that I've read the whole Bible, and I can't honestly say that the people at Vision Forum are directly contradicting Scripture." I see what you are saying, Susan. But where I see that they are directly contradicting scripture, more essentially, the words of Jesus Christ Himself, is where they violate... "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This foundational nugget of Truth is completely lost on them. They don't get what it is really about. They are rule keepers. Not God lovers. None of these men would want done to them what they do freely to women with self-rightous, reckless abandon. They are sick and in need of a Healer. But to accept that verse is to ignore the rules, also clearly stated in the bible. To accept the rules is to ignore the golden rule. The fact is, the bible itself *can't* clearly distinguish between the two. It's humans who have to prioritize it, because it isn't obvious from the bible alone. I believe that was susan's point.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 25, 2010 14:22:29 GMT -5
But to accept that verse is to ignore the rules, also clearly stated in the bible. To accept the rules is to ignore the golden rule. The fact is, the bible itself *can't* clearly distinguish between the two. It's humans who have to prioritize it, because it isn't obvious from the bible alone. I believe that was susan's point. Yes, this is a good point. I suppose the way that they get around the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"-verse, is the same way that many authoritarian Christian parents get around it in their parenting. How else could they justify hitting their kids? Can they honestly say that they'd like to be spanked or grounded for not getting their chores done, or for talking back and questioning authority? Many of these parents would say that to really treat their kids as they'd like to be treated, would not be in their chilren's "best interests." And I suppose authoritarian husbands use the same justification for treating their wives in ways that they would not want anyone to ever treat them.
|
|
mara
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by mara on Jan 25, 2010 18:59:08 GMT -5
Question.
Suppose for a minute that the story of Jesus Christ is true in that he IS God born in the form of a man.
If this were so, would his words carry more weight than the words of, say, the apostle Paul.
Also.
If Paul claimed to work for/serve Jesus (believing Jesus is God), do you think he would want his words to "cancel out" the words of Jesus or support and go along with what Jesus said. If there were a contradiction between Paul's words and the words of Jesus, do you think Paul would say, "Follow my words" or "Follow the words of Jesus"? (This line of questioning would go for any of the New Testament writings and probably the Old as well)
I only bring it up because Christians claim that Jesus is God. They don't claim that Peter, Paul, or Moses are God incarnate. They only claim that Jesus is God. Yet, these same Christians ignore the words of Christ in exchange for the words of Paul (or some other). Words which aren't even always understandable.
It is a phenomenon I've observed for some time and wonder at. Has anyone else wondered about it?
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 25, 2010 19:18:53 GMT -5
mara, but even Jesus' words include stuff like "he that does not hate his own wife is not worthy of me" or something like that. I consider my inability to remember the quote precisely an improvement, so I'm not too interested in looking up the exact quote, but I'm certain you know what I'm talking about.
All I'm saying here, is that I really don't think you have any more basis biblically or theologically for throwing out patriarchy and keeping the nice bits. That decision is a measure of your ethics as an individual person, and shows you are a good person, but it doesn't exonerate the belief at all.
|
|
mara
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by mara on Jan 25, 2010 21:19:48 GMT -5
Started a reply, Jemand. Then something came up. I'll catch you tomorrow, if you don't mind.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 25, 2010 21:41:01 GMT -5
Started a reply, Jemand. Then something came up. I'll catch you tomorrow, if you don't mind. honestly, I really would rather *not* get into a debate about theology. But I do get really frustrated by people who insist that they *absolutely know* what the foundational truth of the bible or of Christianity is, and every single person who reads the bible differently has obviously got it wrong. The bible really does have legitimate literary interpretations of the stated text which support patriarchy and other abuses.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 25, 2010 23:25:42 GMT -5
The bible really does have legitimate literary interpretations of the stated text which support patriarchy and other abuses. Yes, this is how I see it, too. Not that I think *I* have the one correct reading -- just that it seems like you have to do a whole lot of twisting to say that the Bible totally supports equality between men and women right here and now. In this Earthly life. I DO think it's better to twist it around if you're of the mindset that you HAVE to accept the Bible as the inerrant Word of God in order to be right with God (I mean, twisting it to say that it supports equality and fairness). But, for me, it just seems a whole lot more intellectually-honest to say that some of the writing was influenced by the human perspectives of the writers. And just as we can read the Psalm where it talks about the sun rising at one end of the heavens and setting at the other end -- and realize that, okay, that's how it looked to people back then but now we know that the Earth really revolves around the sun -- So we can read some misogynistic verse, and realize that, okay, that's how most or all of the men thought back then -- but we know better now.
|
|
mara
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by mara on Jan 26, 2010 8:49:13 GMT -5
Okay, Then I'll drop it. I have a headache today anyway. Don't get them often. But when I do... For the record, I was not really thinking I'd convince you, Jemand, of anything but rather wanted to use it as a springboard to help those in the faith who don't want to leave the faith, want to remain somewhat conservative, but do want to leave patriarchy, that there are verses in the gospels, ignored by patriarchs, that do undercut it. But if nobody else wants to play, then neither do I. (For those curious Mt 23:6-12)(Again Jemand, not for you or Susan or for debate but for those who are searching.)
|
|
|
Post by madame on Jan 26, 2010 9:16:38 GMT -5
Susan, I get what you are saying.
1. Bible's misogynistic undertone (or overtone!): I have chosen to understand that God was working with patriarchal societies. After all, He did state in Gen. 3.16 that man would rule over woman (but notice, he didn't tell man to rule over woman).
In the NT. Jesus seems to level the ground. He talks with women (John chapter 4, woman at the well, disciples were surprised, remember?) He reveals himself to a woman first after his death. Salvation came through a woman.
Pauline and Petrine letters: Both instruct women to submit to their husbands (and servants to masters, children to parents), but husbands are not told to rule, lead, or have authority over their wives. Instead, they are told to love, cherish, nurture, understand, honor.
To me, these letters were addressed to patriarchal/misogynistic societies. If you read the instructions that way, they read very differently! I think we make a mistake when we assume that because the letters were addressed to patriarchal societies, patriarchy is God's order.
Still, I struggle reading the whole "woman submit" passages... I struggle with the Bible as a whole these days.
2. Bending Scripture to remain fundie but a "nice person": I get you. I struggle with the reasonings I've heard regarding equality in the church. I still can't do away with the passages that prohibit women from preaching. And yes, it does seem very misogynistic! I guess the topic doesn't affect me as much because I'm not interested in leading church, and because I think we "do church" in a very un-relational way. One man talks, everyone else listens, Sunday after Sunday... I also don't believe the preacher is the one who has authority, but the Bible. Somewhere in 1 Corinthians 14 (I think) it says that if someone has something to say ( a revelation, maybe a correction), the speaker should be quiet and allow the other church member to share. The whole issue of church and who should do what is muddled.
3. Scripture being inerrant: I think it is. But we are reading translations, and we are reading texts written to people thousands of years ago. There is a context. There is also the difference between direct commands and rules " love one another as I have loved you", and poetry or history. It makes me mad when people always have to find the answer for everything in the way someone or another handled a similar case in the Bible. Lots of stories are just HISTORY, not examples to be imitated!
My kids are not letting me concentrate. They want to play on the pc... I'll try to finish later.
|
|
|
Post by journey on Jan 26, 2010 14:21:49 GMT -5
3. Scripture being inerrant: I think it is. But we are reading translations, and we are reading texts written to people thousands of years ago. There is a context. There is also the difference between direct commands and rules " love one another as I have loved you", and poetry or history. It makes me mad when people always have to find the answer for everything in the way someone or another handled a similar case in the Bible. Lots of stories are just HISTORY, not examples to be imitated! I don't know if I believe it is inerrant. Not anymore. To me, inerrant is sort of the same thing as "magical." I realize we sort of run the gamut here at NLQ, as far as beliefs go, so the following is where I find myself at, today. Assuming the stories in 1 and 11 Samuel happened, even when God inspired people to do great things, they were still people, and they still didn't do everything perfectly. David, for example, was inspired to be the shepherd king of Israel, and yet you can't look at his kingly life and say he was "inerrant." You can look and see an overall guiding hand of God, sure, but not perfection. Same with the calling of Peter and Paul, Elijah, etc... You can see that God was on that life, but you would be hard-pressed to claim that His inspiration caused perfection....the human element is always there, always... The only way we can say that the Bible is perfect is by faith...because there is no actual proof that the Bible is inerrant. It is a "fact" that must be adhered to by faith (or a sort of magical thinking). It's kind of weird how much I heard the word, "circular reasoning" applied to the evolutionist argument (by the young earth creationists), and yet we employ circular reasoning every time we say that the Bible is without error. Myself? I do believe the Bible is an ancient collection of books and letters, and I think there is much wisdom and inspiration within it's pages. I think we get into big trouble when we believe it is without any error and is all to be taken "literally"------a code word in the camp for NOT carefully including context, NOT taking into account the historical background, and NOT remembering the fact that it was written by a fellow human being. And people can read the Bible through a fundamentalist (literalist) lens, whether they are atheist or evangelical. It happens all the time. I am not exactly sure where I will be at with the Bible, but this is where I am at for right now. I believe there is a sacredness there, but I no longer believe the things I was taught about it. It is no longer a magic book to me. Unfortunately, for those of us brought up in fundamentalism, when the Bible ceases to be a magic book, we have a hard time seeing any value in it at all. We were so well taught in the land of either/or that we have a difficult time with both/and. We were taught that we HAVE to believe that it is infallible, inerrant, perfect OR we have to dump it altogether (because they said it's meaning and value is derived from its inerrancy). I struggle with this, but for the most part, am working hard to appreciate the value and meaning within the Bible, while at the same time appreciating that it is a collection of letters and books written by human beings who were doing the best they could to know and love God within the unique time and history they were a part of. I no longer study the Bible for personal reasons. It was a source of great harm to me (because I read it through a literalist lens, and had it used by others in that same way to inform me how I was to live my life). It is difficult for me to read it in any sort of study or personal mode, with occasional exceptions, so for the most part, I do not. I do highly enjoy meditatively listening to the Scriptures read each Sunday at the Episcopal church I attend. I also enjoy, if not irregularly, reading selected Scriptures meditatively out of The Divine Hours. But actually studying the Bible? I am so highly turned off by the pronouncments and proclomations made by others as to how we are all to live our lives (usually based on literalist readings) that it makes it hard for me to even crack a page. (I do live in a very conservative area, so that's probably a big part of this). For example, I recently was exposed to someone telling abused women that God said they could divorce, but they weren't allowed to ever get married again or they couldn't go to heaven. All based on a literalist reading, of course, that completely ignored the context or historical background of the verses that were so blithely, albeit with good intentions, being used to slam on women who were now, according to this person, living in adultery and condemned to hell. Ugh. I just can't live in that world anymore, or any where close to it. What in the world gives people the right to think they can make such proclomations about how other poeple have to live their lives? No slam meant towards the person---I really liked the person who did this, mind you---it's just the mindset that you can't help but get into when you believe you have a magic book. (I know....because that was my mindset, too).... Love. Love works. Living graciously, that is a good thing. I love those words. I love the letters of the Bible that highlight those themes. But the verses and passages that are used to control others...yuck. Gives me the heebie-jeebies and reiterates for me again how dangerous believing in a magic book can be.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 26, 2010 14:26:50 GMT -5
Madame -- what you say about the Scripture about submission being for wives, and not telling husbands to rule over their wives -- well, can't the same be said about the Scripture telling children to obey their parents?
And yet, most fundamentalist parents, and even a lot of other parents, read it as it being up to them to MAKE their children obedient.
Still, the way I look at submission is that God calls us all to be tenderhearted toward one another. I really think the word "submission," at least in the context that it's usually used in in today's society, wherein one person "gives in" and is dominated by another, isn't what God is calling for.
I feel we're supposed to listen to and care for one another, and try to help one another do the things we want to do in life. I think this is my role in my relationship with my husband and also with my children, and it's their role with me and with one another, except that of course I feel that I have a greater responsibility to help my children than they do to help me.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 26, 2010 14:47:14 GMT -5
journey, thank you for sharing! We are actually going to an Episcopal church now, too! I see what you mean about that old teaching that you either have to swallow it whole or totally reject it. And you are right that there are fundamentalist Atheists just as there are fundamentalist Christians. And, with the fundamentalist Atheists, if you try to talk about context they will often inform you that if God were really omnipotent, then it seems like He should be able to do a better job of keeping His Word from being so misunderstood. Where I am at right now, is that I just believe that God allowing humanity to grow up at her own pace, is somehow enabling us to develop in ways that we would have just missed out on if we'd been born knowing it all. The best analogy that I can think of, is that I know this elderly lady who thinks we'd be better off if we didn't produce children, and just developed the ability to clone ourselves and have everyone start off as an adult. But I think we'd miss a lot if there were no children. It's true that there's also a lot of risk and pain in raising kids -- but it's all so incredibly worth it. And somehow I think that's how God looks at humanity. This growth process (how many millions of years and counting?) is all so incredibly worth it. But, my fundamentalist Atheist friends think I'm crazy, and "of course" it would be better if mankind had started off knowing more, and a whole lot of suffering could have been prevented. But this is just our reality -- I don't think anyone can know, for sure, that it would have been "better" another way. But I think I am rambling here, and am maybe veering too far off-topic.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Jan 26, 2010 15:03:11 GMT -5
Madame -- what you say about the Scripture about submission being for wives, and not telling husbands to rule over their wives -- well, can't the same be said about the Scripture telling children to obey their parents? And yet, most fundamentalist parents, and even a lot of other parents, read it as it being up to them to MAKE their children obedient. I agree with you on "making children obedient". What I do believe is that I have a responsibility as their mother that I only share with my husband. God calls parents to train up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. In HIS nurture and admonition. That is, we should love them, give them what they need, teach them about life, God, Jesus, being like Jesus, etc.. You know that verse homeschoolers use to say "God says to homeschool"? It tells me that teaching our children is about living with them, being with them, talking with them, walking with them... You don't have to do it all day, but it's important that we cultivate a relationship with our children. That's not the emphasis of most Christian child training manuals, sadly. Too much emphasis is placed on "biblical discipline". Interestingly, my first problem with fundamentalist interpretation came when I became a mother. I knew I could never beat my child with a stick so I set out to find out whether God actually required that of me, and whether my children would go to hell if I didn't make them obey me. First, I resigned myself to the awful idea. Then, as I met more and more mothers who didn't use physical discipline but loved the same Lord I loved, I went back to see whether I may be wrong. Often, I feel like I have absolutely no control over my brood. Learning to be in control of things while not controlling my children is a process... You're right. We are all called to esteem one another as above ourselves, to love sacrificially, to serve, to submit to one another. It's not a one way street. I have a problem with Complementarian and Patriarchal doctrine because they use the Bible like a manual for some electronic device ( thanks Journey, for that cool comparison!). They call Ephesians 5: 22-33 "God's blueprint for marriage", and then they read it as it suits them, through the lense of male supremacy, all along ditching all other passages that talk about how to treat people, and carrying the analogy of Christ and the church several miles too far. Can you find support for that in the Bible? Yeah, but you have to ignore some very clear commands and Jesus' example. You can also find support for stoning people, mass murder, genocide, plural marriage, hatred, cutting off limbs, etc... I don't read much Old Testament. I can't stomach a lot of it.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Jan 26, 2010 17:49:45 GMT -5
When I say I believe the Bible is inerrant, I mean that what is in it is God's word, useful in our walk with Him, and that He inspired it, so it's perfect, although not everything in the Bible is perfect, if you see what I mean! What's in there is meant to be in there, although we may not know why. You're right that it takes faith. I guess I simply believe it, even if I can't read some parts of it. We read the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac a few nights ago, and I couldn't bring myself to say anything. I couldn't understand WHY God would have to test Abraham that way. My 6 year-old couldn't understand it either. Same goes with Noah and the Ark, and on and on... there is much in there that I don't want to read or think about. At least not now.
Absolutely, Journey. I just spent some time reading through some posts on a hyper-fundamentalist site that dissect the Bible in search for answers for everything. Believe it or not, one of the site owners was counselling a woman who is married but currently living with another man, that she is now wife of her new man and ought to fulfill her wifely duties to him . No going back to her (still) husband, who couldn't take her back even if he wanted to because she is now "defiled". And he says that with the Bible in the hand.
Yeah, I get the point about bearing in mind fellow human beings wrote it, to human beings, who lived in a culture that is not ours.
I don't read much Bible. I stopped reading when all it did was make me feel worse and doubt myself while I was going through a hard phase. Going for a walk and telling God what I really think did a lot more for me than reading Bible. I still don't find reading the Bible very comforting. I sure wouldn't go to it if I were feeling low, or seeking answers.
|
|
mara
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by mara on Jan 26, 2010 18:01:34 GMT -5
Journey: "We were so well taught in the land of either/or that we have a difficult time with both/and. We were taught that we HAVE to believe that it is infallible, inerrant, perfect OR we have to dump it altogether (because they said it's meaning and value is derived from its inerrancy)."
These are very good words. It is this black and white thinking and seeing only through a black and white fundamental lens that hurts people.
Journey: "I struggle with this, but for the most part, am working hard to appreciate the value and meaning within the Bible, while at the same time appreciating that it is a collection of letters and books written by human beings who were doing the best they could to know and love God within the unique time and history they were a part of."
These are also good words, and wise. Thank you for writing them. I think you are right on.
|
|
mara
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by mara on Jan 26, 2010 18:04:24 GMT -5
Susan: "Still, the way I look at submission is that God calls us all to be tenderhearted toward one another. I really think the word "submission," at least in the context that it's usually used in in today's society, wherein one person "gives in" and is dominated by another, isn't what God is calling for."
Also very good words. A good discusion all around. Thanks for sharing your hearts ladies. It's been a blessing for me.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 26, 2010 18:43:17 GMT -5
GROUPHUG!
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on Jan 27, 2010 10:44:08 GMT -5
Journey,
Thank you so much for your post yesterday afternoon. You captured the way I am also feeling
What I truly appreciated was the use of the word "magical" in reference to the way some people use the Bible. Yes, that is the perfect word! As if it is a book of spells, incantations, and recitations.
Some of the most beautiful metaphors for love are in the prophets and in the Psalms. (And also some of the most bizarre) It is truly amazing. But it is not "magical".
And the way Mary Pride and others have picked it apart and applied it is absolutely ridiculous. (One example being the one you cited regarding "marriage") I remember the confusion I felt when she was on the rampage that remarried folks needed to separate from their spouses immediately, and remain single or return to the original spouse. (To perfectly obey the scriptures) Do you remember that?
Thanks!
|
|
mara
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by mara on Jan 27, 2010 17:58:55 GMT -5
I agree. Grouphug. And I 've been thinking about it some more. You gals come at it differently than I do, but we are arriving at a similar place. (Not identical, but similar.) Some of you say when you look at the overview of the Bible, you see a lot of Misogyny, and I understand where you get that. A couple of you relate that to the culture more than to God. When I look at the overview of it, I see a whoooooole heck of a lot more of God's judgement on the wicked and the oppressor and His protection of the widow and the orphan and His desire for justice for His people than evidence of Him being Misogynic. I see that there are a few verses that certain individuals have latched onto for putting women in boxes for their personal gain. But those verses are a very small percentage of the whole. I'd guess less than .1% (yes, less than one onethousandth). But the patriarchs make it out to be a large and important percentage, like anywhere from 20-75% of what the Bible teaches. And they have made it so off-balance that it is ridiculous and laughable. Jemand is right in that so many come to the Bible and make it say what they want it to say. And so many have done it, claiming to speak for God, that it is no wonder she and others have tossed the whole thing. I feel no judgement towards them there. But still, looking over it, looking with the mind of, "What does God think is important" (for those of us who believe in God) rather than what an individual preacher/teacher/man may bring it into more focus or a better focus. Granted, personal bias still gets in the way. It always does. But if approached humbly, rather than with a holier-than-thou attitude, it could really make a difference. maybe. Even though I didn't have a label for it, it's this humility that I saw in Journey's and Susan's post that I quoted. They display that humble attitude needed in order to approach the Bible honestly, with no self-serving agenda. That's the attitude I want to have when I approach it. And reading their words is helping me hone into that attitude a little better. Again, Thanks
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 28, 2010 13:47:26 GMT -5
Thank you for sharing that, mara.
|
|