quote: "Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples...and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast," the church quoted CBS as saying.
posted
Um, excuse me? The article says that the spot was turned down because it criticised churches for keeping gays out. How is that 'banning Christianity'?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, that statement, seemingly says that we dont want to show it, in case an amendment is passed, in which case we can refuse the ad outright because it won't be discrimination.
posted
Bok, I thought that statement says exactly what it says, that CBS doesn't want to show it because of the administration's stance on gay marriage.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, but that is a superficial answer, a network is supposedly a private, independent entity from any part of our government. Why does the fact that the president has called for a constitutional amendment make a difference? What is the underlying worry?
aspectre: Nope. They aren't asking the network to agree with them.
posted
Personally, I would have a problem with the idea that my church has bouncers outside keeping folks out. We're not a fancy nightclub. Plenty of people go to our church in shorts and a tee shirt.
Let's be honest about the situation. Some churches believe the Bible is the Word of God. Some don't. Any of the churches that take the first view cannot accept practicing homosexuals for leadership positions in the church since it would violate 1 Timothy 3 . That doesn't mean we hate gays.
Sure, there are some bigots that hate gays. I'm not denying that they exist. I'm just tired of all churches being painted with the same brush. Disapproving of a behavior is different from keeping someone out of church. I live with my boyfriend in direct violation of God's Word. I know my pastor doesn't approve, but he's certainly never told me I wasn't welcome in church.
Can't we at least be honest about what the other side believes on this one?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are there churches that believe God wrote it but it has errors? What would be the point?
Either God is infallible or he isn't God in any sense of the Judeo-Christian tradition I'm familiar with.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, they believe that God gave man the idea, but man may have erred when writing it down. I'm not really the person to explain it, but it's an important distinction to make, since I don't think there are any Christian churches out there who don't think the Bible is the word of God.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess to my mind that would make it man's interpretaion of God's Word, not actually God's Word. But you're right, blacwolve and Ryuko, that is an important distinction.
So to ammend, there are chuches that believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God. They cannot approve of practicing homosexuals in leadership positions. Anyone who feels the Bible has errors can ignore the bits they don't like. In my opinion, what's the point then? You're not obeying God, you're doing whatever you want. But I suppose that's a whole 'nother thread.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't wait until one of those 'the Bible is the infallible word of God' churches have their first stoning.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: An NBC spokeswoman said the problem with the ad was not its depiction of same sex couples at church, but its implication that other religions are not open to all people.
This is the reason I would reject the ad. As much as I agree with the sentiment, the fact is that I do not want to see ads from different denominations, different religions, and different theological positions sniping at one another on TV. This ad is relatively tame and subtle. I doubt they would all remain that way. Let's imagine that an extreme conservative group tries to rebut this ad by showing gays being turned away from heaven and burning in hell, or instead makes an attack ad on the UCC itself.
Running the ad sets a dangerous precendent, IMO. I think it's best to just stay out of those waters entirely.
Posts: 720 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a minister once who said (jokingly) that her feeling, when reading some of the more difficult passages of Paul's writing, was that God inspired Paul to sit down and write some really beautiful things about love and faith. Then Paul kept writing, and writing, and writing, and eventually God inspired Paul to go to bed before he did any more damage.
Posts: 720 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: So to amend, there are churches that believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God . . . .Anyone who feels the Bible has errors can ignore the bits they don't like. In my opinion, what's the point then? You're not obeying God, you're doing whatever you want.
There are certainly more options than you’re allowing for. A partial list:
1. God’s literal word, exactly as if God dictated it to human scribes. . . .a. This is true only in the original texts. Scribal errors may have occurred. . . .b. This is true in only the original languages. Translations are interpretations, you have to learn to read Hebrew and Greek to be sure. . . .c. God supervised not only the originals but also the translations. One particular English version, (insert version here) is the literal word of God.
2. Fallible in some things, but not in anything concerning salvation. We shouldn’t try to find historical or scientific truth in it, but only spiritual truth, which is told through allegory, parables, etc.
3. A merely human record of myths, history, laws, poems, stories, etc.
4. A fraud devised by the early church to gain power.
5. A misguided/mistaken interpretation of the teachings of inspired prophets (the Hebrew prophets and Jesus of Nazareth.)
6. The word of God, but only when the reader is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The words themselves mean nothing without the interpretation of the Spirit.
7. A human record of humanity’s ongoing relations with God. The words and images were chosen by people to attempt to describe experiences that did not necessarily involve words.
8. An outdated collection of superstitions written from a pre-scientific worldview.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the ad was made when the national Church found that there were a lot of people out there who where open to Christianity, but had been burnt by prior experiences with other denominations (or maybe even the UCC itself, which, despite the tenor of the national church, has more than a few conservative churches). To highlight the message that the UCC is a possible alternative, they picked a bunch of different minorities that are "denied entrance". This was made well known before the test airings last Easter. It isn't a condemnation of the other churches, it's a way that the UCC feels it can differentiate itself and reach out to others, specifically a particular group of others. It sounds like a rationalization, but this has been the message from the national church since they started talking about the ad campaign. --
Non-inerrantists believe that the Bible was written, by all the authors, in good faith. What they might say is that the culture the authors lived in, which is sinful as all societies are; as such biases may creep in, and it is up to the reader to use their god-given abilities to discern the meaning of the text.
Are their problems with the non-inerrantist approach? Sure. There are also different, but no less troubling issues when taking the inerrantist approach, no? The bottom line is that we believe one way or another due to supremely unique spiritual experiences we've had.
The way I look at it, Jesus is the Word of God, by all accounts, not the Bible itself. The Bible is the human attempt at capturing that word.
-Bok
EDIT: Aw, heck. Dana outlined it better than I! Must be why she's the minister
posted
Bok, this is off the Church of God website. I think it's agreeing with you.
quote: There is probably only one major rule for the use of the Bible: Read it! We honor the Bible by accepting the fact that Christ is Savior and by worshiping him as Lord of life. He is the Living Word to whom the Bible, the written Word, witnesses (John 1:1–18).
While I appreciate the info, dkw, I still don't understand how anyone could be Christian, actively trying to live in Christ's example, and not believe the only book that really tells you what the man did. How can we live like Him if we think the book He left us is flawed?
Edit to add: I guess I'm with number 6. Without the Spirit guiding us, how can we understand if what we see is true?
posted
Catholics, for one, while not thinking the Bible is "flawed," also believe in a great body of tradition outside the Bible, passed down in other writings throughout the history of the Church.
posted
Avid: you can hardly use a Bible reference to cause someone to change their viewpoint on the Bible. If someone's viewpoint doesn't assume the Bible is inerrant, then why should they follow what you point to?
Circular reasoning is a common flaw in "why you should read the Bible this way" arguments.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? I didn't know that. I knew they had some extra books inbetween the Old and New Testaments that protestants don't have.
Is the other stuff divinely inspired, or is it a collection of personal accounts of the time? I don't have a problem with learning extra info on Jesus, I just don't get the rejection of the Bible. I have a lot of friends that look for personal revelation but won't accept someone else's.
Edit to add: fugu, I only used the Bible quote to show where the rule comes from. If someone did not believe the Bible was infallible, of course they would disagree with it. It's the fallible/infallible part I don't understand. I don't care if anyone here agrees with me or not, and I'm certainly not trying to change anyone's view. Just explaining my own.
posted
He didn't leave it for us. He left his actions and his speakings, all of which were transmitted orally amongst mortal believers for 10-20 years, at least, before being written down. Then, 300 years later, a group of bishops (in sense of the term applicable for that time), ruled on heresy and sacredness, discarding many tomes also supposedly inspired. What we have is then a re-transliteration (since straight translation is impossible given the time and culture changes).
Now some more recent, in the sense of being recognized by others, churches have their own inspired teachings that support, and in some places supplant, this original process' integrity, and that's one way to get around the issue (that came out disrespectful; obviously, if these newer churches do have newly inspired texts, then they are right). --
My only criticism of the statement quoted is the second instance of "word" being capitalized.
quote:Is the other stuff divinely inspired, or is it a collection of personal accounts of the time?
Yes, some of it is divinely inspired.
See this link for more detail. Fair warning, it is a specifically Catholic description and refutes certain Protestant doctrines. I don't post it to try to convince but as an example of the doctrine.
posted
Ok, I was taught that the man and the book were basically the same thing. Others would look at them as seperate things, one God, one a collection of teachings about Him. I think I get it now. Thanks, Bok.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are there churches that believe God wrote it but it has errors? What would be the point?
Either God is infallible or he isn't God in any sense of the Judeo-Christian tradition I'm familiar with.
Yes there are many churches that take that stance. Not because they believe God is infallible but because they believe that it is the word of God as recorded, preserved and translated by inspired men -- who are fallible.
Are there any churches that believe that God literally wrote the Bible. I thought it was widely acknowledged that Moses wrote the first 5 books, Paul wrote the Epistles of Paul, David wrote Psalms, Isaiah wrote Isaiah and so on.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
DKW will (gleefully) correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that a great many scholars have doubts about how many psalms were written by David (or indeed whether any were written by David) and whether Paul wrote all the letters attributed to him.
But you are correct, the question isn't about the infallibility of God, abut about the fallibility of those who transcribe His word.
Posts: 720 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes Intelli, You are correct. there is controversy among scholars about the authorship of nearly every book in the Bible -- but to the best of my knowledge there is no controversy about whether God literally wrote any of it -- He didn't.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, that article, while in the past was likely correct, is incorrect in saying that all protestants belive in the bible and ONLY the bible.
Yeah, I knew that, but forgot to mention it.
We may have to come up with a more precise word than "Protestant" - in this case it means the heirs of a specific tradition, one in which the Bible as the ultimate authority was central. In that sense, the article is accurate. If "Protestant" is interpreted as "non-Catholic" then it's not.
The stuff specifically about Catholic doctrine, though, is pretty good.
posted
Personally, I've never understood why errors in the Bible invalidate the whole thing. Even when I was devout I assumed that fallible humans translated it and that was why we needed ministers and priests, to make sure we knew how to read it.
There are scientific errors in the Bible such as the declaration in Leviticus that rabbits chew their cuds (they don't), or the reference in one of the Books of Kings to a "molten sea" with a diameter of ten cubits and a circumference of thirty cubits (which would mean pi = 3), there are inconsistencies here and there (many of them argued over for centuries by various camps of believers) and every few years we hear more reports about how the King James version mistranslated the original Hebrew or Greek in such a way as to alter the meaning. None of that ever affected my faith.
[ December 02, 2004, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
