Woman Caught in Adultery Who’s Who

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Sandy]

[Haruo]

I am always surprised when the throw the first stone pericope comes up and nobody looks at Jesus' interaction with the woman at the well. No admonition not to sin.

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Tim would you concede a vast difference in the slavery of Biblical times and that of colonial America.

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

There is no "support" for slavery in any of those passages. What both Peter and Paul are doing, recognizing that slavery was part of the culture, was providing instruction to both slaves and masters as to how they should conduct themselves as Christians. There's nothing in there that endorses slavery as a valid practice, but only a recognition of the fact of its existence, and that Christians who were slaves were to be an example and a testimony of faith to their masters, and fellow slaves, and the masters who were Christian were to be examples to their slaves. Paul even provides guidance, in Philemon, for a slave owner to bypass the commonly accepted practices, and do something completely out of character regarding a slave who is also a brother in Christ.

Regardless, you can't jump from "Paul supported slavery" to "Paul's support of slavery means that we can ignore his words on homosexuality."

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

[Haruo]

Who are the "they" in Romans 1:18ff?? The use of this passage by those of an unwelcoming and denying position concerning the priesthood of gay believers and the blessing of their marriages seems to presume that homosexuals are first idolaters, and only later and consequentially homosexuals. I find that assumption very difficult to take seriously, even if Paul meant it that way, which I find almost as hard to swallow.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

When Keith has a problem with a text that even a liberal interpretation cannot fix, the solution is to reject the offending words. Inerrancy may need some textual help at times and interpretive issues abound but Keith's hermeneutic installs his own mind as Divine Inspiration. Smart though he may be, I prefer the text and will deal with the problems as they come.

This whole discussion starts with his rejection of "...sin no more" by deliberately ignoring it. When one has a desired outcome for any passage, it is assured that they will find a way to get there.

[Tim Bonney]

[Dave Roberts]

I had someone tell me twenty or more years ago, "Baptists believe the Bible cover to cover---as long as you keep it covered." That's where the disagreements start. We all come to the scriptures wearing blinders and see what we want to see. The problem on both sides seems to be that we are unaware of our own blinders.

[KeithE]

[Haruo]

"Go and sin no more." It is good advice, even if it had not come straight from Jesus. It is the advice we give each other in AA meetings (though of course for most folks, drinking is not sin per se) "Don't drink even if your donkey falls off." Okay, we don't use that kind of language in AA, but this is church. I don't think Keith or I or liberal exegetes in general ignore the admonition. But... Straight couples are (or used to be) referred to as "living in sin" until such time as they marry. The church, if it refuses to marry gay couples, is if anything urging them, encouraging them, insofar as possible requiring them, to continue to live in sin.

[Haruo]

And then there are those who do take Paul for gospel: