Face value?
Submitted by Bonzo on September 08 2000 07:45:31
In reply to Face value? submitted by Splash! on September 07 2000 16:05:10
|
Hi Splash! -- I hope I phrased my "clear and unclear" post in such a way as to indicate that I'm not trying to argue in favor of a particular meaning of 1 Corinthians 6:9. I'm arguing that it's sometimes better to declare "I don't know" than to assert "It means this". How can we question what the scribes wrote? I think that we must question what the scribes wrote. I won't delve into the contentious topic of the nature of inspiration, but I would caution anyone who declares "It means this" in the absence of a consensus. To do otherwise leads to the slippery slope down which we slide to join the so-called creationists, for example, who make fools of themselves when they discuss evolution. I'll take the verse at face value. Face value? Below I'll mention the unfortunate case of one Christian who took a particular verse "at face value". Perhaps it would be better to discuss the verses that say homosexuality is good and healthy and holy. How can there possibly be "verses that say homosexuality is good" when the word "homosexuality" did not exist when the biblical books were composed? To encourage discussion, let me quote Jesus's words from Matthew 19:12. "For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." What is the "face value" of this verse? Should we consider castrating ourselves "for the kingdom of heaven's sake"? The brilliant early Christian biblical scholar named Origen was so troubled by his lustful feelings that he did in fact castrate himself. As you might expect, in later life he came to regret this impulsive act. If Jesus didn't mean that we should consider castrating ourselves, what did he mean? -- Bonzo |
Follow ups: