The "Lady, Your god is too busy getting indicted for tax fraud" thread

[Philawallafox]

Yes I like the West Wing
I will quote it often.


I also like Doctor Who, Dream Theater, Cricket and I'm a Christian in the vein of Reformed Evangelicalism. I don't know ANYONE else who says that they like all of these things but I'm open to finding someone.

I guess a few of you have noticed that i've already had a couple of clashes on here. i'd like to welcome you all to askk questions or even outright disagree with me. I like 1 Peter 3:15 "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect"

I'd like to say that I'm perfect and will always be respectful and gentle, but I can't. however I'll try. Along with that I'll try to answer anything posted here.

If you want something out of left field to break the ice:

I think The Bible interprets itself and that cultural background should stay in the background when interpreting a passage. What say you?

[Ħ]

This is a new type of thread.  I don't think we've ever had a Bible-based Q&A thread.  I suppose this is the best place for it, though.

I have concerns about water baptism.  I created a thread that you can find if you scroll down the list.  I would enjoy your input.

EDIT:  To answer your question, I think that's how the Bible ought to be interpreted from a Bible-believer's viewpoint.  However, if someone were to look at the Bible from a historical point of view of the Bible, it is necessary to take into account the cultures of Israel and her contemporaries.  (Unless by "cultural background" you are referring to the culture of the modern reader, in which case I believe the culture should be jettisoned.)

[Philawallafox]

This is a new type of thread.  I don't think we've ever had a Bible-based Q&A thread.  I suppose this is the best place for it, though.

I have concerns about water baptism.  I created a thread that you can find if you scroll down the list.  I would enjoy your input.

EDIT:  To answer your question, I think that's how the Bible ought to be interpreted from a Bible-believer's viewpoint.  However, if someone were to look at the Bible from a historical point of view of the Bible, it is necessary to take into account the cultures of Israel and her contemporaries.  (Unless by "cultural background" you are referring to the culture of the modern reader, in which case I believe the culture should be jettisoned.)

I'm basically saying that culture is helpful for giving nuggets but shouldn't be used as a filter for how we read the bible. especially when you start cutting or changing it.

for example the dark nintendo night. it's really cool but that doesn't mean we should read Dream Theater's music as computer game music (tenuous I know... sorry)

[eric42434224]

If the Bible is the word of God, shouldnt it be interpreted the with the same results regardless of the "culture" of the reader?

[Philawallafox]

If the Bible is the word of God, shouldnt it be interpreted the with the same results regardless of the "culture" of the reader?

Some people don't get as much value from the scriptures as others because they live in a completely different context to the people in the bible.

I guess for example post feminism alot of women these days have trouble stomaching Paul not permitting women to teach so they look at the context of the bible and say paul was a misogynist because he also didn't like when women braided their hair and told women to shut up in church as well. Therefore we don't need to listen to what he says about Women not teaching.

In fact Paul (and early christians by and large) was(were) very good to women. He tld women not to ordain themselves richly because it was drawing attention to them and away from the Gospel. He told women to not talk at church because in those days women sat up the back away from their husbands and would be talking to their husbands during the service distracting people from (you guessed it) the gospel. So why did Paul not allow women to teach? If you hold historical context over the bible you would say that it's because women preaching would distract men in a patriarchal culture. The men wouldn't listen to the woman and it would (again) distract from the gospel. However if you interpret the bible with itself you would say that it affirms an equal but different standard. Paul wanted to have clearly defined genders. Leading men for example is a male role. Paul doesn't say women can't preach at all. He just says not to men. (it's in...1 Timothy I think. I don't have a bible at hand at the moment) Women can therefore still teach other women and children as well. See how this keeps gender roles clearly defined and is still loving to women and doesn't interpret the context over the bible?