Comments on: Coulter’s just like the rest of us http://online.worldmag.com/2007/10/18/coulters-just-like-the-rest-of-us/ A forum for discussion of news that arises at the intersection of Christianity and culture. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:25:32 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: SteveG http://online.worldmag.com/2007/10/18/coulters-just-like-the-rest-of-us/comment-page-2/#comment-228596 SteveG Sun, 21 Oct 2007 16:08:39 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/18/coulters-just-like-the-rest-of-us/#comment-228596 TJ at #45: <i>The point of correctly interpreting the Bible is not that folks can justify whatever they want to out of the text. It’s whether they are handling the text accurately and consistently.</i> But how do you know? Some theologians argue that many of the moral laws in Leviticus, including the proscription on homosexual behavior, were intended not as eternal moral laws but as a way to distinguish the Hebrews from the other tribes around them. There are other laws given in the same sequence that no one today insists we still have to follow. The part about homosexuality is Leviticus 20:13. Leviticus 20:9 decrees the death penalty for anyone who curses his father or mother. Levitcus 20:14 forbids marrying both a woman and her mother, which suggests that marrying more than one woman if they are not so related is ok. Do Christians advocate polygamy based on this verse? (Or even based on the examples of those later kings who had multiple wives and concubines.) Leviticus 20:25 distinguishes clean and unclean animals, something kosher Jews follow but not Christians. Leviticus 19:19 forbids wearing clothing made of mixed fibers. Leviticus 19:20 says that fornicating with a slave girl who is betrothed to another is a less grievous sin than if she were free. 19:27 gives rules on hair and beard length, and 19:28 forbids tattoos. So why single out a few rules and reject others. On what basis? TJ in #56: <i>The two verses in Genesis 1 show that man was created in the image of God. That alone presupposes that that he is not to destroy another image bearer (for this would be like attempting to “destroy” God).</i> But God decrees death as the appropriate punishment for many sins. I already cited one for cursing a parent. The man who slept with a freed woman betrothed to another would be put to death. And there are many more. If destroying "another image bearer" is wrong, why does God command just that in so many cases? Bear in mind that by what you just said, there should not be a distinction because it's punishment for sin. By what you believe, all are sinners, even though they may not be guilty of this or that specific sin. But all sinners are also image-bearers, so if it's wrong to kill an image-bearer, then it's wrong. And if it's not always wrong, then how do you know when it's ok? TJ at #45: The point of correctly interpreting the Bible is not that folks can justify whatever they want to out of the text. It’s whether they are handling the text accurately and consistently.

But how do you know?

Some theologians argue that many of the moral laws in Leviticus, including the proscription on homosexual behavior, were intended not as eternal moral laws but as a way to distinguish the Hebrews from the other tribes around them. There are other laws given in the same sequence that no one today insists we still have to follow.

The part about homosexuality is Leviticus 20:13. Leviticus 20:9 decrees the death penalty for anyone who curses his father or mother. Levitcus 20:14 forbids marrying both a woman and her mother, which suggests that marrying more than one woman if they are not so related is ok. Do Christians advocate polygamy based on this verse? (Or even based on the examples of those later kings who had multiple wives and concubines.)

Leviticus 20:25 distinguishes clean and unclean animals, something kosher Jews follow but not Christians. Leviticus 19:19 forbids wearing clothing made of mixed fibers. Leviticus 19:20 says that fornicating with a slave girl who is betrothed to another is a less grievous sin than if she were free. 19:27 gives rules on hair and beard length, and 19:28 forbids tattoos.

So why single out a few rules and reject others. On what basis?

TJ in #56: The two verses in Genesis 1 show that man was created in the image of God. That alone presupposes that that he is not to destroy another image bearer (for this would be like attempting to “destroy” God).

But God decrees death as the appropriate punishment for many sins. I already cited one for cursing a parent. The man who slept with a freed woman betrothed to another would be put to death. And there are many more. If destroying “another image bearer” is wrong, why does God command just that in so many cases?

Bear in mind that by what you just said, there should not be a distinction because it’s punishment for sin. By what you believe, all are sinners, even though they may not be guilty of this or that specific sin. But all sinners are also image-bearers, so if it’s wrong to kill an image-bearer, then it’s wrong. And if it’s not always wrong, then how do you know when it’s ok?

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Random Name http://online.worldmag.com/2007/10/18/coulters-just-like-the-rest-of-us/comment-page-2/#comment-228580 Random Name Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:27:12 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/18/coulters-just-like-the-rest-of-us/#comment-228580 My mad is flat. My mad is flat.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Scroop Moth http://online.worldmag.com/2007/10/18/coulters-just-like-the-rest-of-us/comment-page-2/#comment-228190 Scroop Moth Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:38:29 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/18/coulters-just-like-the-rest-of-us/#comment-228190 Mr Meaner #13 <i>Whether someone attends a church or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they are Christian.</i> How amazing that nobody has contradicted this falsehood! Not that anyone should take it upon my authority, who erred in twice attempting to become born again, thereby losing any credibility here. So I offer my opinion merely as an object of horror. Turn your eyes away, if you can: Mr. Meaner may be a hobbyist in Christian beliefs, even a fan of the Master, but he is not a branch of the vine. Mr Meaner #13 Whether someone attends a church or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they are Christian.

How amazing that nobody has contradicted this falsehood! Not that anyone should take it upon my authority, who erred in twice attempting to become born again, thereby losing any credibility here. So I offer my opinion merely as an object of horror. Turn your eyes away, if you can: Mr. Meaner may be a hobbyist in Christian beliefs, even a fan of the Master, but he is not a branch of the vine.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: TJ http://online.worldmag.com/2007/10/18/coulters-just-like-the-rest-of-us/comment-page-2/#comment-228105 TJ Sat, 20 Oct 2007 13:37:09 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/18/coulters-just-like-the-rest-of-us/#comment-228105 Actually, the Hebrew word for "image" (tselem) can also mean semblance (or representation), not just a physical likeness or reproduction. Once again, you are simply taking your own subjective interpretation and reading it into the passage. This is not the way one does exegesis (any kind of interpretation, not just Biblical). Word have meanings, and those meanings are defined by their context, authorial usage, grammatical considerations, etc. To use an example that I read this morning, someone might say, "I am mad about my flat." On the surface, that sounds like a very easy sentence to interpret. It is very tempting to read one's own meaning into it, especially if one ignores things like the context in which the statement appears. In this case, it can have at least two interpretations. If the speaker is American, it means that he is angry about his tire being punctured. If he is a Brit, it means that he is overjoyed about his living quarters. But one will never ascertain the meaning of the statement by simply reading one's own subjective and preconceived conclusions into it. Actually, the Hebrew word for “image” (tselem) can also mean semblance (or representation), not just a physical likeness or reproduction. Once again, you are simply taking your own subjective interpretation and reading it into the passage. This is not the way one does exegesis (any kind of interpretation, not just Biblical). Word have meanings, and those meanings are defined by their context, authorial usage, grammatical considerations, etc. To use an example that I read this morning, someone might say, “I am mad about my flat.” On the surface, that sounds like a very easy sentence to interpret. It is very tempting to read one’s own meaning into it, especially if one ignores things like the context in which the statement appears. In this case, it can have at least two interpretations. If the speaker is American, it means that he is angry about his tire being punctured. If he is a Brit, it means that he is overjoyed about his living quarters. But one will never ascertain the meaning of the statement by simply reading one’s own subjective and preconceived conclusions into it.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: rdean http://online.worldmag.com/2007/10/18/coulters-just-like-the-rest-of-us/comment-page-2/#comment-227997 rdean Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:14:39 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/18/coulters-just-like-the-rest-of-us/#comment-227997 #52: and I can not see into her ‘heart’ to say otherwise. Heart???? #52: and I can not see into her ‘heart’ to say otherwise.

Heart????

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: scott http://online.worldmag.com/2007/10/18/coulters-just-like-the-rest-of-us/comment-page-2/#comment-227971 scott Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:37:36 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/18/coulters-just-like-the-rest-of-us/#comment-227971 #56, God destroys people all the time, are you kidding me? He tells US not to, but if it's His will, it's OK. How is THAT in the image of God. Plus, IMAGE to me (checking Hebrew) means a visual or imagined physical likeness. This seems especailly true since the verse focuses on the physical creation. After all, if the mind was in God's image, things might be a little different today. Gen 9:6 adds even more confusion to your point. If that we're the case, Cain should have been killed by God, not make a "vagabond". You're a pretty funny lady/dude TJ. #56, God destroys people all the time, are you kidding me? He tells US not to, but if it’s His will, it’s OK. How is THAT in the image of God. Plus, IMAGE to me (checking Hebrew) means a visual or imagined physical likeness. This seems especailly true since the verse focuses on the physical creation. After all, if the mind was in God’s image, things might be a little different today.

Gen 9:6 adds even more confusion to your point. If that we’re the case, Cain should have been killed by God, not make a “vagabond”.

You’re a pretty funny lady/dude TJ.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: scott http://online.worldmag.com/2007/10/18/coulters-just-like-the-rest-of-us/comment-page-2/#comment-227962 scott Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:19:06 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/18/coulters-just-like-the-rest-of-us/#comment-227962 I cannot assert that Cain didn’t have moral instruction as much as you cannot assert that he did. Which is the best one to pick? I don't see it in the book of truth so how is one to assume that was the case? Benefit of doubt? Oh, ROMANS... Listen, if your god wants to show himself to me, so I can "see" him, it sounds like a pretty easy thing for the omnipotent one to do. I can't see him, really, and I am not kidding. If you want me to think that just because a banana is octagon shaped and it fits into my hand that that's seeing god, they we can stop this right now. We'll just never agree. So, let me ask then, is your moral code “built in” or from a book? If so, people who have never read the book should have the same moral code as outlined in the Bible, is that correct? Moreover, making it even easier all Christians should have the same moral code, they all do read the same book as far as I know. You think that people just know that a blood sacrifice is preferred to one of veggies? I sure don't, not without your book telling me so. PLUS, my friend TJ said it was in Genesis, so it's got to be in there somewhere, I just cannot find it. I cannot assert that Cain didn’t have moral instruction as much as you cannot assert that he did. Which is the best one to pick? I don’t see it in the book of truth so how is one to assume that was the case? Benefit of doubt? Oh, ROMANS… Listen, if your god wants to show himself to me, so I can “see” him, it sounds like a pretty easy thing for the omnipotent one to do. I can’t see him, really, and I am not kidding. If you want me to think that just because a banana is octagon shaped and it fits into my hand that that’s seeing god, they we can stop this right now. We’ll just never agree.

So, let me ask then, is your moral code “built in” or from a book? If so, people who have never read the book should have the same moral code as outlined in the Bible, is that correct? Moreover, making it even easier all Christians should have the same moral code, they all do read the same book as far as I know. You think that people just know that a blood sacrifice is preferred to one of veggies? I sure don’t, not without your book telling me so.

PLUS, my friend TJ said it was in Genesis, so it’s got to be in there somewhere, I just cannot find it.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: TJ http://online.worldmag.com/2007/10/18/coulters-just-like-the-rest-of-us/comment-page-2/#comment-227944 TJ Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:32:31 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/18/coulters-just-like-the-rest-of-us/#comment-227944 Ken makes an excellent point in # 51. The two verses in Genesis 1 show that man was created in the image of God. That alone presupposes that that he is not to destroy another image bearer (for this would be like attempting to "destroy" God). This is spelled out more clearly in Genesis 9:6 (which actually reads like a renewal of the creation covenant). There is more to the Genesis 4 story that either of us have alluded to. Verses 3 and 4 read: "In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard." Two things to note: there is an obvious emphasis on Abel's sacrifice (i.e., he brought "the best" -- the firstborn and fat portions). However, the text makes only a general statement about Cain's offering (the distinction is even more clear in Hebrew -- there does not appear to be anything special about what Cain did, more like he was only going through the motions). But something that has been noticed about this passage (since the days of Martin Luther at least) is that there is an indication that God looked first to the heart of Abel ("had regard for") before He looked upon the sacrifice (and did the same for Cain). Cain's heart was not right before God. The outcome of the passage shows this to be the case. He does not bring a bloody sacrifice, but instead sheds his brother's blood ("The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground.") What I asked for was a reference that someone who had done exegesis on Genesis 4 came to the same conclusion you had. Why you decided to jump down a rabbit hole is beyond me. :) Ken makes an excellent point in # 51.

The two verses in Genesis 1 show that man was created in the image of God. That alone presupposes that that he is not to destroy another image bearer (for this would be like attempting to “destroy” God). This is spelled out more clearly in Genesis 9:6 (which actually reads like a renewal of the creation covenant).

There is more to the Genesis 4 story that either of us have alluded to. Verses 3 and 4 read:

“In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard.”

Two things to note: there is an obvious emphasis on Abel’s sacrifice (i.e., he brought “the best” — the firstborn and fat portions). However, the text makes only a general statement about Cain’s offering (the distinction is even more clear in Hebrew — there does not appear to be anything special about what Cain did, more like he was only going through the motions). But something that has been noticed about this passage (since the days of Martin Luther at least) is that there is an indication that God looked first to the heart of Abel (”had regard for”) before He looked upon the sacrifice (and did the same for Cain). Cain’s heart was not right before God.

The outcome of the passage shows this to be the case. He does not bring a bloody sacrifice, but instead sheds his brother’s blood (”The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground.”)

What I asked for was a reference that someone who had done exegesis on Genesis 4 came to the same conclusion you had. Why you decided to jump down a rabbit hole is beyond me. :)

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Spinoza http://online.worldmag.com/2007/10/18/coulters-just-like-the-rest-of-us/comment-page-2/#comment-227934 Spinoza Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:21:24 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/18/coulters-just-like-the-rest-of-us/#comment-227934 #54 Lighten up, hun. :) #54 Lighten up, hun. :)

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: David L. http://online.worldmag.com/2007/10/18/coulters-just-like-the-rest-of-us/comment-page-2/#comment-227920 David L. Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:04:41 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/18/coulters-just-like-the-rest-of-us/#comment-227920 Spinoza, Why not keep your cotton-candy "thoughts" to yourself? They only make you look stupid and embittered. Spinoza,

Why not keep your cotton-candy “thoughts” to yourself? They only make you look stupid and embittered.

Report comment to moderator

]]>