More hypocrisy, Anglican-style
It's always so fun when you have meetings of church elders to discuss a return to "traditional values." For example, Henry Orombi, Archbishop of Uganda: "I want that we go back to the first love that the early Church had in Jerusalem, that inspired them to mission, that allowed them to make sacrifices, that we go back to believing the word of God to be the word of God, as it is in the Bible."
Don't these people go to seminary? Don't they force you to read about the "early Church" in seminary? Don't they tell you that... um... well... that there is no such thing as the "early Church" in Jerusalem, or that what the Anglicans now believe--pretty much all of it--has absolutely no resemblance to the "early Church" in Jerusalem? That the "early Church" in Jerusalem did not have a copy of the "word of God, as it is in the Bible," because that didn't exist until the 4th century in Rome?
Man I hate hypocrisy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7468065.stm
Don't these people go to seminary? Don't they force you to read about the "early Church" in seminary? Don't they tell you that... um... well... that there is no such thing as the "early Church" in Jerusalem, or that what the Anglicans now believe--pretty much all of it--has absolutely no resemblance to the "early Church" in Jerusalem? That the "early Church" in Jerusalem did not have a copy of the "word of God, as it is in the Bible," because that didn't exist until the 4th century in Rome?
Man I hate hypocrisy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi
posted by William H. Harwood at 2:33 AM
2 Comments:
Even as a detractor of homosexuality's place in Christianity, I have to say the traditionalists are treading on unsteady ground.
The pamphlets from the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCon) state, "We want unity, but not at the cost of re-writing the Bible to accommodate the latest cultural trend."
This argument is dangerous argument to stand on because previous Christian leaders large and small have reinterpreted the Bible's words to match cultural trends.
• Jesus was likely born in the Spring however Pope Gregory I suggested moving Christ's birthday to match the pagan winter solstice celebration.
• Sympathetic priests quoted Genesis as justification that enslaving African Americans helped carry out God's will. However the Bible never specifies the significance of skin color as it pertained to slaves, or what the mark of Cain looked like.
• Similarly, the Americas were conquered and the West was won on the grounds Christian (or European, or white) superiority.
• And then there were the Crusades and the Inquisition.
• Revelations was particularly popular during WWII and afterwords Jerusalem was returned to the Jews according to some of God's earliest decrees.
Making the Bible rigid against the trends of society is likely the wrong way to draw a line in the sand. If the laws laid down in Leviticus are still relevant and enforceable, they must be reflected upon in relation to rather than in spite of our world today.
And for those who love old world traditions, nothing beats using religion in a science class to purify forward thinking students.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=5214063&page=1
Do unto others...
Indeed, my friend, you offer an infinitely truncated list of possible options. Two things worth mentioning, however:
- The Mark of Cain was not attributed to blacks, as this was a means devised by God to protect Cain from those who would seek to harm him. I believe you are referring to the attempt--still cited well into the late 19th century in America--to declare Ham the ancestor of all brown people. After all, Noah got hammered, passed out naked, and his son accidentally stumbled upon him in this state--leading to the curse of God upon all of his progeny that they would be the "slaves of slaves" for eternity. How's about that for something that shouldn't be rewritten? See your dad naked? All your future blood are now slaves!
- You mention Leviticus. Chances are at the moment you are wearing something that is a blend (e.g., cotton and wool). According to Leviticus you are blaspheming against the Lord. And don't go thinking that you can differentiate as to degree, as the Hebrew Bible is quite clear that all God's commandments have equal validity. Indeed, the "10 Commandments" is a very recent invention; there are 613 equally-binding mitzvot in the Hebrew Bible, not 10 special ones.
Post a Comment
<< Home