Batt Boy
Honored Member
- Messages
- 758
I'd suggest Peter Enns. You know there are people who believe the Bible works other ways than a rulebook.Clearly the work of an inerrant, omnipotent being
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'd suggest Peter Enns. You know there are people who believe the Bible works other ways than a rulebook.Clearly the work of an inerrant, omnipotent being
Or, like Charlie Kirk, a selective rulebook.I'd suggest Peter Enns. You know there are people who believe the Bible works other ways than a rulebook.
those types should especially read Enns or RohrOr, like Charlie Kirk, a selective rulebook.
It does no good because the in-group dynamics colors their understanding of the Bible, not the other way around. Those type of Christian Nationalists are too guarded to have their world view changed by out group authors. They have steeled themselves as part of their in-group training and their psychological makeup is simply incapable of being open to other ideas from the out group.those types should especially read Enns or Rohr
sadly, I know. Family members whose politics filter what they take from any world scripture, instead of having those scriptures lead one to wisdom and influence their politics.It does no good because the in-group dynamics colors their understanding of the Bible, not the other way around. Those type of Christian Nationalists are too guarded to have their world view changed by out group authors. These have steeled themselves as part of their in-group training and their psychological makeup is simply incapable of being open to other ideas from the out group.
Which is the great irony of fundamentalism and literalism. There is very little interest in understanding what the Bible actually says and why.sadly, I know. Family members whose politics filter what they take from any world scripture, instead of having those scriptures lead one to wisdom and influence their politics.
King didn't apologize for saying that, he apologized for sharing misinformation, which was an incorrect quote, not a change in Kirk's opinion.No, because they don't exist. You're likely referring to out of context quotes of a small portion of one of Kirk's comments that you read about on BlueSky. Kind of like what Stephen king did with the "stoning gays" comment (for which he apologized).
I think that's true. With regards to Catholics, especially true outside the US, but in the US there has for some time been a growing movement to ignore the liberalization of the Vatican. Much like the evangelicals, it's driven by younger adherents.Traditional denominations (both Catholic and Protestant), by and large, don't foment Christian Nationalism. It is mainly confined to evangelicals.
I know too well. When I try to give my take on what Wisdom the Bible leads us to regarding peacemaking, wealth and poverty, judging others, mercy, condemnation of hypocrisy, or something as clear as Leviticus 19:34 I am met with Ausländer raus (in Southern accent) and worse.
Yeah, it was just coincidence that he and Nick Fuentes were fellow travelers for most of their respective careers.
It was just a coincidence that his organizations were staffed by people who texted that they hate black people, and also texted n-words.
It was just a coincidence that so much of his body of work was out of context.
That's a valid take. Might be the best one. I don't know. As for me, I place very little historicity in the Bible. I see it a much more valuable.But why presume that the bible has any moral relevance--any wisdom--whatsoever? Or, put less antagonistically, why presume that its contemporary relevance is primarily moral as opposed to, say, historical or literary?
When I say "historical," I don't mean to suggest that I think that the seven-day creation or the Exodus or the trials of Job or the miracles of Jesus or his resurrection really happened. I just mean to suggest that the stories in the bible are valuable for what they disclose about the compilers and/or writers of the stories. For instance, the social utility of Genesis 12--God's call to Abram--starts to make a lot of sense when you realize that it was possibly composed by Judeans in exile. What could be more attractive than a story about how you've been divinely promised the land of Canaan? What could more attractive than to conceive your own return from exile as part of a providential design first carried about by the patriarch of your people?That's a valid take. Might be the best one. I don't know. As for me, I place very little historicity in the Bible. I see it a much more valuable.
That's in large part, Enn's point. He writes that the Bible is ancient(most be viewed as such),diverse(many writers over a long period of time and lots of contradictions - I mean we have 2 versions of the 10 commandments), and ambiguous. It's not a rule book to be downloaded but an invitation to know the divine in the world we live in today relative to our place in it.When I say "historical," I don't mean to suggest that I think that the seven-day creation or the Exodus or the trials of Job or the miracles of Jesus or his resurrection really happened. I just mean to suggest that the stories in the bible are valuable for what they disclose about the compilers and/or writers of the stories. For instance, the social utility of Genesis 12--God's call to Abram--starts to make a lot of sense when you realize that it was possibly composed by Judeans in exile. What could be more attractive than a story about how you've been divinely promised the land of Canaan? What could more attractive than to conceive your own return from exile as part of a providential design first carried about by the patriarch of your people?
When I say "historical," I don't mean to suggest that I think that the seven-day creation or the Exodus or the trials of Job or the miracles of Jesus or his resurrection really happened. I just mean to suggest that the stories in the bible are valuable for what they disclose about the compilers and/or writers of the stories. For instance, the social utility of Genesis 12--God's call to Abram--starts to make a lot of sense when you realize that it was possibly composed by Judeans in exile. What could be more attractive than a story about how you've been divinely promised the land of Canaan? What could more attractive than to conceive your own return from exile as part of a providential design first carried about by the patriarch of your people?
cannot underestimate the exile to the Jewish story. Heck, that is the defining event of the OT.I'm teaching an online version of "Intro to the Hebrew Bible" this semester, first time I've ever done it, and we started with the Babylonian Exile. Probably one of the best moves I've made teaching that material...everything unfolds so well if you start there.
Why?Pretty dumb to compare the two.
Two creation stories as well, and the in the first one, man and woman are created at the same time.That's in large part, Enn's point. He writes that the Bible is ancient(most be viewed as such),diverse(many writers over a long period of time and lots of contradictions - I mean we have 2 versions of the 10 commandments), and ambiguous. It's not a rule book to be downloaded but an invitation to know the divine in the world we live in today relative to our place in it.
That's in large part, Enn's point. He writes that the Bible is ancient(most be viewed as such),diverse(many writers over a long period of time and lots of contradictions - I mean we have 2 versions of the 10 commandments), and ambiguous. It's not a rule book to be downloaded but an invitation to know the divine in the world we live in today relative to our place in it.