|
I swore i'd quit. But debate is like crack...there are no quitters, just people in various stages of recovery.
I wholeheartedly agree with Lebell...knowing the society in which a faliable and human text was born can help show us why such injustices are included and shown in a holy light. I don't condone them...but i won't throw baby out with bath water. Guilt by association is a logical falliacy...and hyperliteralization is just as distorting. I just would like to know how it is "subjective" to want to know what the passage meant to those who wrote it, and what its meant to the community since.
That said, i don't see much profit in going in to the particular passage further...the link i posted from whosoever.org has about the best discussion of the "hammer" passages that you're bringing up, paper. Read it if you care to. And thank you for your apology...i don't mind that you disagree with me...i had the exact same objections a few years back. I just prefer to keep the discussion civil.
Cheerios-I'm always glad to share that site-It's one of the most scholarly and complete discussions i've seen of GBLT relations with the church that i've seen online...
|