You have clearly demonstrated that a) you don’t understand what hermeneutics is, and b) as a result, you have no clue what “reader response” hermeneutics are, either.

Most certainly the church has not responded, in recent years, in an equal manner toward divorce, fornication, etc. as it has toward homosexual sin. This is not because the latter is not a sin, or because it should be “lowered” to the attitude toward other sexual sins – rather, it is because the others should be raised to the same view as being sin that must be dealt with.

FYI – we’re in the process of shutting down old comment threads, particularly when they cease any forward momentum, and as such, I’m closing this one down…

Why is it currently popular for Christians to desperately want to “fix” gay people yet no one is trying to “fix” divorced people and get them back with their first spouse. – Mark

Mark,

In many ways I agree with you. Homosexuality has been a sin that the American Evangelical church has been obsessed with for too long. I’m not ready to ignore the parts of the Bible that you do – but I agree that “we” have focused on it while “excusing” other sins.

That said, I think your use of “fix” in relation to gays and “no one” in relation to addressing divorce are overly loaded. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of ministries dedicated to marriage.

Getting off the illustration and back to the issue – how the American church has addressed or ignored certain sins is still moot to the discussion of whether not said action is sin.

I stand on the fact that God superintended the giving of his revelation to the point that he was able to assure that the black letters are as valuable as the red.

Neil

This is just another example of “reader-response” hermeneutics downplaying the sexual sin of marrying and having sex with others after divorce, something which Jesus clearly forbids, but you and the church accept it without comment yet the current mainstream Christian attitude is that life long, committed, monogamous homosexual relationships are an abhorrent violation of scripture that must be corrected immediately even though Jesus never bothered to mentioned it.

Don’t you see how this whole discussion is just dripping with irony?

All hermeneutics are “reader-response” hermeneutics.

Isn’t this just another great example of Christians ignoring parts of the Bible that they don’t find convenient all the while accusing others of “reader-response” hermeneutics?

>”I’m curious why one of my friends dismisses the
>Friday-evening-to-Saturday-evening Sabbath
>observance as “not for us today” but insists that
>capital punishment can’t be dismissed because
>it’s in the Old Testament.”

I see that Scot and I have the same questions. Why are some parts of the Bible allowed to be ignored yet others are not? Why do some Christians accuse others of “reader-response” hermeneutics all the while applying their own “Reader-response” hermeneutic to the Bible.

Hey!! There is that word, “moot”, again!

Neil, would it help for me to clarify by saying that it isn’t the Bible that is contradictory. It is our currently popular but significantly flawed hermeneutics that is making the Bible appear to be contradictory? Thus, when we find the correct hermeneutic then the Bible will appear to contain no contradictions.

So far we have been focusing on Homosexuality and how it is cleverly and carefully connected to adultry and also carefully and cleverly disconnected from wearing two different kinds of cloth by today’s popular hermeneutics.

Below is an example of another kind of logical quagmire. How can you require today’s christians to believe in the resurrection of Jesus in order for them to avoid hell unless you also condemn all Christians who lived in Jesus’ day but died before Jesus was resurrected?

Here is what was claimed over at another blog called:

http://mikeratliff.wordpress.com/2008/01/20/the-effects-of-denying-the-resurrection/

>”Those who deny the resurrection are not born of the Spirit,
>despite their claims. If they were born-again the Spirit would
>testify the truth of the Scripture to them.”

>” You can’t deny the foundation of the faith and simultaneously
>claim to be of the faith.”

And here is my reply:

>Does this mean that anyone who died before
>Jesus was resurrected is now in hell? If you
>read the Bible more carefully, you will notice
>that Jesus directly told people that they could be
>saved simply by believing in him. Jesus never
>said that they must wait for his death and
>resurrection and believe in that. This is one
>of many logical quagmires that Christians
>currently practice.

I find the argument on the category of the law (ceremonial vs. civil vs. moral) to be irrelevant. The bottom line is we now live under a new covenant not the old. Therefore trying to figure out which article of the Law we must obey is moot. As far as I’m concerned it’s a minor discussion compared to you assertion that the Bible is contradictory. (cf. my comments from Jan. 19, 12:25)

Thanks for your kind words.

Neil

Mark,

Use of the elipsis (…) says to the reader….

Sandman, I have no idea why you are rambling on about ellipses but don’t bother to explain further because to tell the truth I’m not all that interested.

Secondly, since 2 Timothy is not actually Jesus speaking, we just ignore that, right?

I had this discussion and clarification just recently with Neil. You must have missed it. Consider it a homework assignment for you to go back and study the response already given above.

By the way, 2 Timothy 2:23 (and 2:24) contains significant wisdom for you in this very conversation at this very moment. I encourage you to reconsider reading, understanding and then following Timothy’s instructions. They were meant for you.

Lastly, if you think you’re not getting answers that are congruent with your way of thinking, it’s on you to look elsewhere…

On the contrary, Chris L and Neil have submitted very thoughtful and intelligent responses to my questions. (even if Chris has to sometimes tell me twice I appreciate their efforts. On the other hand, some of the most recent comments have begun to get rather snarky and self-aggrandizing. Not to worry. This is the Internet and the occasional childish burst of useless noise is to be expected.