Satanic after school clubs?

[Josh Blade]

I have never seen such abuse of a passage of scripture, such twisting into an amazingly unrecognizable meaning, as I just did with the small passage entitled, "Leviticus" when I clicked on your link.

 

So I didn't read the rest. 

 

I think the point of linking that paper was to show that you can play linguistic games to change the meanings of things. I think even Sadie would agree that Leviticus is outright homophobic and doesn't agree with that section of the paper. S/he was merely replying to someone else wondering if the bible isn't talking about slavery in the sense of owning people, but rather being 'slaves to Christ'. Which is a 'give me a break' line of thinking. 

 

It seemed to me the paper was a tongue in cheek response to playing linguistic games to suit your narrative (Sadie, if I misrepresented you there, I'm sorry. That's what I took you to mean). 

Edited August 9, 2016 by joshblade

[J-rap]

Exactly.  You are a resident of the dominant culture.  It may be yours or it may not. 

 

The church is protected from the state, not the other way around, as so many wrongly believe.  

 

The First Amendment does NOT contain the words "separation of church and state". 

This is our Constitutional right, unlimited by restrictions, for the religious and irreligious alike (bolded merely to reference religious assertion):

 

First Amendment:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

 

I know it is somewhat controversial since the degree of separation (in the Constitution) is not absolutely clear.  

 

But, the separation of church and state really is a cornerstone of American democracy.  I think public schools pushing a certain religion crosses that line. 

 

Christ didn't work through government agencies either.  I think that's a good example for us.

 

I like this quote (John Dickinson, 1768):

 

"Religion and Government are certainly very different Things, instituted for different Ends... While these are kept distinct and apart, the Peace and welfare of Society is preserved, and the Ends of both are answered. By mixing them together, feuds, animosities and persecutions have been raised, which have deluged the World in Blood, and disgraced human Nature."

 

(I know we're not really on this particular topic anymore in this thread, but I wanted to respond to to your post.)

[J-rap]

Mercy, I don't think you have anything to apologize to me for at all. But you said you were sorry and I pointed out that it wasn't really an apology- it was nothing but fake nice.

 

I'm quite certain that Mercy's niceness is always genuine.

[Haiku]

I'm quite certain that Mercy's niceness is always genuine.

I have disagreed with Mercy in the past but have never found her to be anything but genuine and kind.

[TranquilMind]

No, but it does seem like clutching at straws in order to explain why one 'sin' is clung onto whilst others are dispensed with in accordance with the times.

 

It's just an unconvincing argument, is all. 

 

My opinion is that the entire thing is an artefact of its times, and that as we know better, we do better, even if that means ditching the relevant parts of the text.

 

It seems people are happy to do so for some issues but not others - cherry picking..

 

No need to reply :) You know what I think and I know what you think!

The food and ceremonial laws are no longer relevant because they are about the separation of the Jews and Gentiles, something Christ eliminated in the New Covenant.  It's a nonstarter to attempt to argue that one can eat shellfish today so obviously all the sexual proscriptions in Leviticus (or anywhere throughout scripture- the sexual proscriptions remain consistent throughout) are not relevant.   

 

 

It makes no sense to argue that one can't wear mixed fibers or eat shellfish and still adhere to biblical principles on sexuality, but there are those who try (Matthew Vines, et al).     

 

The sexual proscriptions against all of the sexual sins listed in scripture (incest, bestiality, homosexuality, adultery, fornication)  remain consistent throughout scripture and are reiterated by Jesus and also by Paul.  Only two paths remains open to the believer scripturally and Jesus and Paul articulated them.  1) Jesus: A man shall leave his father and mother and cling unto his Wife and the two shall be one flesh and 2) Paul:  For those to whom it is given, they should be as I am (celibate). 

 

[TranquilMind]

I know it is somewhat controversial since the degree of separation (in the Constitution) is not absolutely clear.  

 

But, the separation of church and state really is a cornerstone of American democracy.  I think public schools pushing a certain religion crosses that line. 

 

Christ didn't work through government agencies either.  I think that's a good example for us.

 

I like this quote (John Dickinson, 1768):

 

"Religion and Government are certainly very different Things, instituted for different Ends... While these are kept distinct and apart, the Peace and welfare of Society is preserved, and the Ends of both are answered. By mixing them together, feuds, animosities and persecutions have been raised, which have deluged the World in Blood, and disgraced human Nature."

 

(I know we're not really on this particular topic anymore in this thread, but I wanted to respond to to your post.)

He did not.  You are correct.

 

But the church is to be protected from the state.  That's the idea.  

 

But Dickinson is right.  Since we don't do that well, we, as a society, just try to scrub all references to faith from the public sphere but you can't really do that 100% because there are people involved.  They don't just check their principles at the door, as those are shaped by faith or lack thereof. 

[J-rap]

You basic argument seems to boil down to that all sins committed by Christians must not be really serious. At least you acknowledge all are sinners but when a serious act of violence, bullying or abuse takes place you jump immediately to your favorite fall back phrase. "Professing Christians". Apparently only "professing (fake) Christians" commit acts of bullying or violence. That's not just wishful thinking. It's hogwash.

 

Being a Christian does not prevent one from all sorts sinful acts. What sins do you thing "true" Christians commit? Giving someone a prideful look or not praying enough? Christian people also rape, murder, bully, commit adultery, larceny and fraud etc. Pretending it ain't so doesn't make that fact less real. Finding a wholly unhypocritical person, Christian or not, is more or less a snipe hunt.

 

 

 

My interpretation of what she is saying boils down to this:  When Christians act without love as their ultimate goal, then they are misunderstanding the most basic and crucial message of the faith.

 

"Beloved, let us love one another, because love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.  Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (1 John 4:8)

[TranquilMind]

I'm quite certain that Mercy's niceness is always genuine.

 

Agreed.  Mercy is the real deal and always genuine.

 

[MercyA]

Thanks so much, you guys. Your votes of confidence mean more to me than you know. I think I probably just need a thicker skin (and more sleep).  :)

 

And, Katie, putting myself in your shoes, I think I can understand your frustration.

 

Now I must get some actual work done. 

Edited August 9, 2016 by MercyA

[J-rap]

Regarding the Bible and slavery.

 

It's true that the Bible is also a historical record of the cultures in which it was written.

 

I believe that God inserted Himself within those cultures and began slowly changing them from the inside out.  It is a slow transformation that progresses throughout the Bible, culminating in the life of Jesus.  He is our example of the purest form of love, one which absolutely does not include holding others in bondage.

 

That radical, self-sacrificial, loving nature is really at the foundation of Jesus' mission.

[Paige]

I sometimes wonder if this is due to a different conception of slavery, or if the word in the original language of the Bible has a slightly different meaning -- in Corinthians, for instance, Christians are called Christ's slaves.

 

I think it has more to do with a radical departure in the way people think. We don't just live differently than people back then, but we think and process our thoughts so differently. I think it is almost impossible for a modern person to truly understand where people were coming from. 

 

Slavery was common. Submission was expected. Fear of supernatural things of all types was expected. Life was brutal, the concept of equal rights was inconceivable, death was frequent and close....Our worlds are too different and we don't think like they do. I'm not saying they were stupid or less than us, but if we put ourselves in their shoes and imagine what we would think or do, we will probably be way off. We/they are not a bunch of Mary Sues! 

 

IMO, the Bible means just what it says because, to my mind, it's the simplest and most likely way to look at it.

 

Slaves were supposed to be slaves because that's what they were. If you were a slave, suck it up and be a good one and hope for the best. If you were a master, don't be a jerk, but there's nothing wrong with owning people. The concept of freeing slaves, having no slaves, or that slavery as an institution is just plain wrong, was not part of their thought processes. It's obvious to us that it could have been, but they didn't think like us. If we accept that Jewish people were slaves in Egypt, and accept that Jewish people had slaves of their own, then the only conclusion is that slavery was like air. They accepted it existed and the thought of it not existing had no real significance. They didn't think to themselves, "We shall have no slaves because we were slaves and it is wrong." Why? Because they didn't think like us. 

 

Similarly, writing that we were to be Christ's slaves was not offensive because Gods and Kings were so powerful. The average person accepted their lowly position as normal and not to be fought against. It is hard for modern people to accept the term slave, because we have senses of self worth. We value our independence and feel we are equal to other people. It is difficult to imagine ourselves as slaves because it goes against everything our culture has taught.

 

As a child, I had a huge issue with Christianity because on one hand I was being taught to worship God and do everything just for his glory, and on the other hand, I was taught that people who wanted to be worshiped were jerks! How can I reconcile that? I know people aren't God, but it was difficult for me as a child to believe both things at the same time.

 

Eventually, I came to believe that people back then expected to worship someone or something unless they claimed to be God or the Emperor themselves. They had no problem being slaves to someone/something, because they were taught that it was their normal condition. They had no problem with the idea that people who wanted to be worshiped were jerks because they believed powerful beings/people should be worshiped.  

 

I think it is telling of the culture that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, but doesn't say free the slaves. Yet, if God could accept slavery in that culture, because of the culture, and not call it an abomination, are we supposed to believe that God would not accept homosexuality in our culture? Which culturally accepted practice is really more damaging?

[Violet Crown]

The concept of freeing slaves, having no slaves, or that slavery as an institution is just plain wrong, was not part of their thought processes.

 

The first two statements, in the context of the Roman Empire in the first century, are demonstrably incorrect. The third is dubious: certainly the Institutes of Justinian describe slavery as "contra Natura."

[katilac]

Getting back to Christian efforts to evangelize in public schools: TranquilMind, did you check out the links I posted? I think those links, which are just a small representative sample, make it clear that there are indeed many efforts across the country to have prayer and the Christian God in public schools, and a great deal of pressure for students to conform. 

 

 

[LucyStoner]

Mercy, I don't think you are mean or false. I just don't think that apologizing with the caveat of "if you misunderstood" is an apology. No one is nice all the time. And that is a-ok. Fake nice was probably the wrong way to express that. I'm sorry. It was late and I should have hit the sheets instead of writing.

 

If I am misunderstanding you- if you don't think that "real" (vs. merely professing) Christians are above sin, tell me that. But nothing I am reading really contradicts that. If one thinks that any sinners (from bullies to murderers to people who hate their brothers) are never Christians, then it follows that no actual Christians commit sins. I don't think that's accurate or even biblical. And it sure is a self serving view for any Christian to claim.

 

It's also another way for people to claim that those without the same intereptation of the bible aren't Christians. Anyone who differs in their view is apparently merely professing to be Christian? That's actually one of the ways people have attacked my brother...it's not enough to deride the status of his family, they can tell him he's not actually of his own faith. Convenient how that works.

[TranquilMind]

 lol, she's a genuine scholar. I am pretty sure I've heard variations of the same points being made by other scholars, esp re Paul. It's a reasonably mainstream alternative reading of the relevant texts. Dr Mona West is also a Christian, although plenty of posters here would apparently dispute that.

 

I looked up this Dr. Mona West, PhD, and absolutely the only thing that comes up on my search is the word document you posted with absolutely no identification or credentials listed.   A bunch of other Dr. Mona (other last names) come up but nothing here.  When you go to mcchurch.org (listed on the paper) it goes to a Montecito Covenant Church and she is not mentioned anywhere. 

 

I would like to see her background and credentials since you found this paper worthy as supporting evidence.  Is she with a university or a church or what? Can you give me a cite?

I think Sadie might have me blocked so can someone else ask for Dr. Mona West's credentials?  Nothing showing up here except this word document.   

 

ETA:  Finally found something after adding Metropolitan Community Church.  Never mind.     http://www.lgbtran.org/Profile.aspx?ID=88

 

"She has published several articles in the area of queer biblical hermeneutics and has a book published by Pilgrim Press in 2000 titled, Take Back the Word: a Queer Reading of the Bible.  She is working with several editors to publish a queer commentary on the whole Bible in 2008.

 

In 2002, she completed a certification program for Spiritual Formation through Columbia Seminary in Atlanta, Georgia, and began serving as Minister of Spiritual Formation at Midway Hills Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Dallas in June of 2004. She and her life-mate, Deb Elder, make their home in the Oaklawn area of Dallas, where they enjoy their two dogs and three cats."

 

I

 

Edited August 9, 2016 by TranquilMind

[luuknam]

I just Googled "Mona West" (without dr or phd) and got:

 

http://mccchurch.org/ministries/mcc-theologies-team/our-team/

 

"The Rev. Dr. Mona West is the Director of MCC’s Office of Formation and Leadership Development. Originally ordained in the Southern Baptist denomination in 1987, she transferred her ordination credentials to MCC in 1992. Mona holds M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees from Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY. She published Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible with Pilgrim Press and is one of four editors of The Queer Bible Commentary published by SCM Press in 2006. Mona’s website can be found at http://www.monawest.com/."

 

Her website doesn't work, and doesn't seem to have ever been archived by archive.org.

 

Also:

 

http://www.lgbtran.org/Profile.aspx?ID=88

Edited August 9, 2016 by luuknam

[TranquilMind]

I just Googled "Mona West" (without dr or phd) and got:

 

http://mccchurch.org/ministries/mcc-theologies-team/our-team/

 

"The Rev. Dr. Mona West is the Director of MCC’s Office of Formation and Leadership Development. Originally ordained in the Southern Baptist denomination in 1987, she transferred her ordination credentials to MCC in 1992. Mona holds M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees from Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY. She published Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible with Pilgrim Press and is one of four editors of The Queer Bible Commentary published by SCM Press in 2006. Mona’s website can be found at http://www.monawest.com/."

 

Her website doesn't work, and doesn't seem to have ever been archived by archive.org.

 

Also:

 

http://www.lgbtran.org/Profile.aspx?ID=88

 

I found the second (and edited to mention it) but not the first.  Thanks.  Mcchurch comes up Montecido Covenant Church for me, which appears totally unrelated.   Her website you reference above will not load.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2016 by TranquilMind

[Pam in CT]

It's funny how search algorithms work -- I'm no Google sleuth, but I got a large number of hits when I tried.  From the first one, the affiliation of Metropolitan Community Churches' leadership bios:

 

 

The Rev. Dr. Mona West is the Director of MCC’s Office of Formation and Leadership Development. Originally ordained in the Southern Baptist denomination in 1987, she transferred her ordination credentials to MCC in 1992. Mona holds M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees from Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY. She published Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible with Pilgrim Press and is one of four editors of The Queer Bible Commentary published by SCM Press in 2006. Mona’s website can be found at http://www.monawest.com/.

 

Here's a LBGT Wiki article on her, and here's a video of a sermon she gave in Dallas last May.  There are lots more that came up, so let me know if you want more, if Sadie doesn't see your post.

[TranquilMind]

http://mccchurch.org/ministries/mcc-theologies-team/our-team/

 

Scroll down.

 

You are really missing the point, TM. 

You are really missing the incredible bias, Sadie.

 

 

[luuknam]

I found the second (and edited to mention it) but not the first.  Thanks.  Mcchurch comes up Montecido Covenant Church for me, which appears totally unrelated.   Her website you reference above will not load.

 

That's what I said - it doesn't work. The page it's mentioned on has copyright 2013 though, and people let their pages lapse all the time.

[TranquilMind]

It's funny how search algorithms work -- I'm no Google sleuth, but I got a large number of hits when I tried.  From the first one, the affiliation of Metropolitan Community Churches' leadership bios:

 

 

Here's a LBGT Wiki article on her, and here's a video of a sermon she gave in Dallas last May.  There are lots more that came up, so let me know if you want more, if Sadie doesn't see your post.

 

That little blurb you posted I found already, as I mentioned when I edited. 

But thanks.

 

 

 

[TranquilMind]

Ah, the irony.

 

Yes. 

 

We finally agree on something. 

 

[MercyA]

Mercy, I don't think you are mean or false. I just don't think that apologizing with the caveat of "if you misunderstood" is an apology. No one is nice all the time. And that is a-ok. Fake nice was probably the wrong way to express that. I'm sorry. It was late and I should have hit the sheets instead of writing.

 

If I am misunderstanding you- if you don't think that "real" (vs. merely professing) Christians are above sin, tell me that. But nothing I am reading really contradicts that. If one thinks that any sinners (from bullies to murderers to people who hate their brothers) are never Christians, then it follows that no actual Christians commit sins. I don't think that's accurate or even biblical. And it sure is a self serving view for any Christian to claim.

 

It's also another way for people to claim that those without the same intereptation of the bible aren't Christians. Anyone who differs in their view is apparently merely professing to be Christian? That's actually one of the ways people have attacked my brother...it's not enough to deride the status of his family, they can tell him he's not actually of his own faith. Convenient how that works.

 

Thanks so much for the clarification, Katie. I probably shouldn't have been posting late last night either! 

 

I believe "real Christians" can and do sin and should seek forgiveness when they do (1 John 1:9). However, based on my understanding of Scripture, someone who willfully and knowingly continues in habitual sin, with no sign of repentance or change, should question whether or not they are really in the faith:

 

"Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test?" 2 Corinthians 13:5 

 

I think in general (and definitely in this passage) the emphasis is on self-examination rather than on examining other Christians. 

 

I don't think it's my place to judge whether or not a specific person has genuine faith in Christ. That doesn't mean I can't or won't speak, when appropriate, about my understanding of Scriptural guidelines. I am comfortable saying, for example, that someone who is continually hateful and unkind absolutely should test themselves to see whether they are in the faith (and that goes for me, too). 

 

An exception to focusing on self-examination would be a situation in which church discipline is needed. If someone in my church family was openly and deliberately committing clear sin, it would be the duty of the church body to correct them, encourage them towards repentance, and possibly remove them, with the goal of future reconciliation:

 

"For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." 1 Corinthians 5:12

 

"My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins." James 5:19-20 

[MercyA]

Never mind.  :)

 

Edited August 10, 2016 by MercyA

[J-rap]

 

 

To get back to the topic of the thread, seeding public schools with one's own religious agenda and then seeking to deny that same opportunity to others hardly meets the definition of love either.

 

I agree with this, as you can see from past posts.

[MercyA]

To get back to the topic of the thread, seeding public schools with one's own religious agenda and then seeking to deny that same opportunity to others hardly meets the definition of love either.

 

I agree with this, as you can see from past posts.

 

 

I agree, as well. I have seen the same people who complain about "prayer being taken out of schools" (i.e. teacher-led prayer) later bewail the fact that Muslim students are provided with a space to say their daily prayers privately. You cannot demand Constitutionally mandated freedom of religious expression for oneself and then deny to others. 

 

"If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." Romans 12:18