Blaise (imported) wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:19 pm It is strange that we debate how to pronouce a name that we are not supposed to pronounce.

Religion is full of strangeness. I have long believed that the principal function of theology is to distract us from facing the fact that we do not do the best we can to love one another.

.

Thanks for fixing my broken link, Paolo. I swear it worked when I posted it! Drat.

Blaise (imported) wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:19 pm It is strange that we debate how to pronouce a name that we are not supposed to pronounce.

I believe that the practice was to use a euphemism when reading out loud. (Like "Mr President" instead of "Mr Bush")

The original texts did not have marks for consonants - when these were invented, they added the marks for the euphemism to the consonant for the 'proper name'. Later scholars failed to spot this.

There is a (decidedly wayward) school of thought that the origin of "YHWH" was a phallic cult - hence the disdain for priestesses and a certain predeliction for _erect_ stones.

kb57z (imported) wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:14 am I believe that the practice was to use a euphemism when reading out loud. (Like "Mr President" instead of "Mr Bush")

The original texts did not have marks for consonants - when these were invented, they added the marks for the euphemism to the consonant for the 'proper name'. Later scholars failed to spot this.

There is a (decidedly wayward) school of thought that the origin of "YHWH" was a phallic cult - hence the disdain for priestesses and a certain predeliction for _erect_ stones.

Yesterday 05:53 PM

Yes, that is the case about the name and the markings. I retract this comment: I think that I have read that YHWH was a phallic cult. I cannot find any reference to back up that statement.

Patient (imported) wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:51 am Mrs. Wesley is expressing the idea that there is a dichotomy between the (good) mind and the (evil) body, a dichotomy that many of us have long considered false.

I don't think we can say, "Oh this is just dualism, and that's been discredited." When I eat a cookie, my tongue is all for it but the rest of my body may prefer green leafy vegetables. If we cannot exercise control over our bodies (or competing parts of our bodies), then we are *out of control* regardless of our worldview.

So I think Mrs. Wesley is saying one should stay in firm control of one's reason and authority over the body. It's not that the body is evil, but if we act outside of our reason, then our actions are unreasonable by definition.

(For anyone who's wondering: sometimes my tongue wins, sometimes the rest of my body wins. )

Can everyone see why I'm not a Christian? There's just too much bickering over simple little things Moving from the flesh to the spirit can't happen when bickering is in control.

What would happen if Christians gave up the bickering and decided instead to grow together in Christ?

Patient (imported) wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:21 am Jessica,

I hope you mean this thread as a joke. If you mean it seriously you are beating one of the longest-dead horses I know---the one that died with Christ on Calvary two millennia ago. The posts by Leona Lee and by Paolo are exactly correct: as St. Paul has explained in exquisite detail, Christ's "precious death and passion" have freed his followers from the duty of obeying the Mosaic Law and by his grace have justified them before his father. He offers us this grace, this justification, as an absolutely free gift. There is no way we can earn it; we can only accept it. This is the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

That some people who claim to be (and perhaps even believe they are) his followers act as if this gospel were false does not in fact reduce its truth, though it does admittedly and lamentably create problems for some other people in accepting the gospel.

.

I think Leona's point was: where does this leave the biblical laws about homosexuality then? Why are most modern Christians adamant about that while happily eating pork and wearing polyester blends?

SplitDik (imported) wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:42 am I think Leona's point was: where does this leave the biblical laws about homosexuality then? Why are most modern Christians adamant about that while happily eating pork and wearing polyester blends?

Some parts of the OT laws merely required the Israelites to do things differently to everyone else in the region, thus creating a definite "us versus them" boundary.

Other laws actually stipulated things that mattered; the ones about meat and milk together make sense if you have one cow and the only way to have meat and milk at the same time is to kill the cow's calf before it's been weaned, which would not be good for the cow.

While some of these laws remain valid now, ("Thou shalt not kill" being an obvious one) others have become entirely redundant.

I don't know which category homsexuality comes into. I'm not sure what the exact wording is; I seem to recall that in one place at least there's a prohibition about lying down with one's manservant, which might well be less about sexuality than about abuse of power.

The Catholic Church, of course, regards homsexuality in the same sort of light as contraception and masturbation - it wastes 'seed'. St Paul, of course, was rather agin sex altogether, so he did not approve of homosexuality either.

This all allows those so disposed to regard homosexuality as 'universally wrong' in the same way as murder, so that they can ignore the revocation of the OT laws.

plix (imported) wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:38 am Can everyone see why I'm not a Christian? There's just too much bickering over simple little things Moving from the flesh to the spirit can't happen when bickering is in control.

What would happen if Christians gave up the bickering and decided instead to grow together in Christ?

[End quote]

I believe that I understand.

Many of the posts in this thread discourage me. It is not that the posts are wrong. It is that people assert their points-of-view as absolute. There is a latent ant-Judaism in some of the posts that those posting might not even realize as being anti-Judaic. Progressive or liberal Christianity never seems to get much attention. However, Leona's point is well made and timely.

Blaise (imported) wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:36 am ] I believe that I understand.

Many of the posts in this thread discourage me. It is not that the posts are wrong. It is that people assert their points-of-view as absolute. There is a latent ant-Judaism in some of the posts that those posting might not even realize as being anti-Judaic. Progressive or liberal Christianity never seems to get much attention. However, Leona's point is well made and timely.

[/FONT]

I don't think it's so much anti-Judaic, as anti-narrow-minded-"fundamental 'Christian'"-hypocrisy. The Jews do not, in general, think that everyone else should do things their way.