Sunday, September 23, 2007

MORE BIBLE BABBLE

SCRIPTURES, n.
The sacred books of our holy religion,
as distinguished
from the false and profane writings on which
all other faiths are based.
Ambrose Bierce,
The Devil’s Dictionary



A gay softball teammate one time mentioned that he had been a Catholic seminarian. He said it was mostly the stupid internal politics, corruption, and general nastiness that drove him away.

Somehow I mentioned the Bible and he said the seminarians were discouraged from reading it, let alone considering it. The only purpose of the Bible, they were told, was to legitimize the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.


Here in the United States we associate Bible-reading with religious wrongheadedness.

If you open the Bible randomly there’s no telling what kind of garbage you might come up with—snake handling, speaking in tongues, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Second Coming, polygamy, child sacrifice, the list goes on and on.




Take the Fugitive Slave Act (please). Paul’s epistle to Philemon supports what must be God’s law: that runaway slaves should be returned to their masters. Oh, he also says that Philemon should treat the slave well—wink, wink.

(Is there a sex angle here? Did Paul like women at all? Do you suppose he ever really “got it on” with anyone?)

I love the American bishops’ explanation in their New American Bible. Of Paul:

He does not attack slavery directly, for this is something the Christian communities of the first century were in no position to do, and the expectation that Christ would soon come again militated against social reforms.

This might explain the fugitive slave thing but it points out a much more glaring discrepancy: the early church thought that the second coming of Jesus would happen in their lifetime or shortly thereafter.

They thought that Jesus had promised this to them.

They were completely wrong.

As silly as the Millerites.

Was there some miscommunication?

And what about slavery? Was it ok then, but wrong now?

See, kiddies, don’t open the Bible, it will only confuse you.

----- o -----

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

For once I must agree.

Very important what this Seminar Homopapist would say he would learn:
the seminarians were discouraged from reading it, let alone considering it. The only purpose of the Bible, they were told, was to legitimize the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

And I recognize this experience:
open the Bible, it will only confuse you.
This is due to the fact, that the Roman Catholics have much control over Bible translations, Jesuits are powerful intellectuals.

The Bible is a history book. So if you understand what the book is about, and you read an honest translation, it will not confuse you, but strengthen your understanding of history and human behaviour. The Roman Catholic Church tries to make this understanding impossible, just like the rest of history and its books. One reading a Bible, will also stop being a papist. And in these times, papism is extended in not only Anti-Christ technology, but also Anti-Humanist technology and Anti-Protestant technology. Satanism is a very typical papist cult, these members are superstitious as Roman Catholics on a pilgrimage.

For explanation:
Anti-Protestants go visit churches on Sunday, and go call themselves Christians, just as Roman Catholics do. People that call themselves Christians, are not intellectuals reading a history book, in order to learn from history. Viewing the difference between a Christian and an intellectual is here is just a help. Another help is the blasphemy that Christians force themselves and others to. Like claiming, that the Bible is the Word of God. Well, the Bible starts with claiming that God Created the World by His Word, so Creation is the Word of God. Not the Bible. The Bible is only about the Word of God, just as other books can be! An historical intellectual discipline that was risen from realizing what the Word of God is, is Alchemy.

I find it funny, that these people do not think, so are not alive. While claiming that they are saved. They are afraid of everything that they not can find in their Bible, like Harry Potter.

I think Harry Potter is a Calvinist, like the greatest universities of Europe where all Calvinist. But the USChristian Inquisition force is attacking humble Calvinist Harry Potter full force over the web.

Churches use the books of Paul to defend their position. Because in the Gospels of Jesus Christ, churches are not supported! Church is a word that does not exist in the Torah, nor the life of Jesus Christ. More even so, the Greek word for Church used in the books of Paul is the word community.

The books of Kings say:
King David wanted to build a temple for God, but was not allowed to do this. So his son, King Solomon, would go build a Temple to God.

I suspect Church is Heresy, but the only thing I can proof with the knowledge I have today, is that Church is a Roman Catholic thing, and real Calvinism will only defend community as a value.

Anonymous said...

i was actually looking up margaret garner and the fugitive slave act when i saw your blog.

ive had the privlidge of being taught by a bible scholar this semester and as much as i agree on some points...on others, well...it just doesnt make sense...
"Another help is the blasphemy that Christians force themselves and others to. Like claiming, that the Bible is the Word of God. Well, the Bible starts with claiming that God Created the World by His Word, so Creation is the Word of God. Not the Bible. The Bible is only about the Word of God, just as other books can be! An historical intellectual discipline that was risen from realizing what the Word of God is, is Alchemy."
perhaps you need to define what the phrase "His word" means to you. maybe look it up in hebrew...i find your argument..well, not very intellectual to be honest.

and im sorry but...church does not mean building...the definition of church is the gathering of believers...so im not sure where you got it that church is anything BUT that...but yes, you are dead on.it is a community.

i apologize for sounding somewhat pissy...but i dont like when people proclaim themselves as intellects when they havnt done their homework. i do not claim to know everything, but i do know that what you state is pure opinion. dont present it as fact.

DO YOUR RESEARCH!

Anonymous said...

just to set things straight....polygamy is never supported in the Bible...rather it is discouraged and only sinful men are polygamists in the Bible (or men who are falling away from God)

as far as Paul's letter to Philemon goes...perhaps this website would help:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html
Paul never says the statement "that runaway slaves should be returned to their masters."

he encounters Onesimus and when he realizes he is a runaway slave and Paul (as a follower of the way) must obey roman law (it would go against his moral code to do otherwise).

perhaps the idea of slavery then and slavery now is the same to you? nada nada enchilada! slavery today consists of forceful captivity and cruelty...back then if you needed money you were a slave for a while...a more suitable definition would be a sharecropper. perhaps the website above would help explain?

i appreciate the honesty, i offer some hard facts for you to look at if you care.

i could go on and on explaining but i wont. i dont know if youd care honestly. so i wont risk boring you or sounding pissy :)

have a great day