The June 1

[creekster]

Of course, another approach is to recognize that the OT is a messy mixture of myth, culture, oral traditions, and divinely inspired narrative and maybe God doesn't really endorse horrible things like genocide and slavery and killing forty kids with a she-bear for teasing an old dude about his bald head.

This explanation certainly works for stories like the talking ass or the child hating she bear, but it is very hard to write off the commandments to kill Canaanites and others without losing many of the central themes and the basic meanings of the OT. The privileged status of the covenant people is manifested nowhere more clearly than by the bestowal by Yahweh of the land of milk and honey on the band of wandering Hebrews. Sure, you can simply decide not to believe it because you don't like it, but apart from making you feel better about your religion, there isn't much doctrinal basis to pick the stories of Jesus in the NT over those of the Hebrews in the OT.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

I wiuld like to know who advises the Church on PR matters such as this. Although the participants shouldn't be surprised it is still disappointing.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

If only the church knew an attorney or two.

I hope that tomorrow is Packer going rogue and has one of those A Few Good Men moments.

[CardiacCoug]

I would like to know who advises the Church on PR matters such as this.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

His name is Jesus Christ.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

His name is Jesus Christ.

Is he a member of the Virginia bar?

[Tex]

I think simple moral reasoning based on a holistic reading of the gospels makes perfect sense and is entirely consistent with the most fundamental christian principles such as "Love your neighbor" and the Golden Rule. If one considers Jesus as the God of the OT and if one believes in a literal reading of scripture (particularly the OT), then such an approach bumps into some contradictions, such as genocide, slavery, racism, etc. You seem to be arguing that we should just shrug our shoulders and accept it as one of God's mysteries. Actually, you are going farther than that: you are using such stories as implicit justification for modern-day discrimination. Your case in question is women and the priesthood, but the very same arguments were (and still are in some cases) used in support of the priesthood ban on blacks and by Southern slaveholders to support slavery. Of course, another approach is to recognize that the OT is a messy mixture of myth, culture, oral traditions, and divinely inspired narrative and maybe God doesn't really endorse horrible things like genocide and slavery and killing forty kids with a she-bear for teasing an old dude about his bald head.

It's much simpler than that. Dehlin, Kelly--you too, I guess--don't believe in priesthood keys. They expend all their energy parsing scripture/doctrine/history trying to figure out what they will and won't believe, and fill in the missing bits with their own personality and sense of moral superiority.

It's a tragic byproduct of weak faith crossed with pride.

This explanation certainly works for stories like the talking ass or the child hating she bear, but it is very hard to write off the commandments to kill Canaanites and others without losing many of the central themes and the basic meanings of the OT. The privileged status of the covenant people is manifested nowhere more clearly than by the bestowal by Yahweh of the land of milk and honey on the band of wandering Hebrews. Sure, you can simply decide not to believe it because you don't like it, but apart from making you feel better about your religion, there isn't much doctrinal basis to pick the stories of Jesus in the NT over those of the Hebrews in the OT.

This is a much nicer way saying of what I just said.

His name is Jesus Christ.

:thumbsup:

[Jeff Lebowski]

This explanation certainly works for stories like the talking ass or the child hating she bear, but it is very hard to write off the commandments to kill Canaanites and others without losing many of the central themes and the basic meanings of the OT. The privileged status of the covenant people is manifested nowhere more clearly than by the bestowal by Yahweh of the land of milk and honey on the band of wandering Hebrews. Sure, you can simply decide not to believe it because you don't like it, but apart from making you feel better about your religion, there isn't much doctrinal basis to pick the stories of Jesus in the NT over those of the Hebrews in the OT.

Whoa. You are going to write off all the other stories, but stick with the most problematic one of all due to narrative consistency? (BTW, there are plenty of valid reasons to apply a different lens to OT stories written pre-800 BC - for starters, those stories were all passed down via oral tradition for centuries before being written down).

As you probably know, the stories in Genesis exhibit a nice cohesiveness.

Creation - The gods create man in their own image. Man eats fruit becoming as the gods. "Hey, these people we created are too much like us, let's kick them out of the garden and make life hard on them."

Flood - Man starts mating with angels and killing and doing all kinds of evil things. "Whoa, these humans are out of control again. Let's wipe them out and start over."

Tower - Man becomes wealthy and powerful and tries to build a tower to heaven. "Darn it, these humans are at it again. Let's mess up their languages and scatter them over the earth."

Really cool consistency in the story line. Genesis is awesome, but there is no way it is literal history. I can make that conclusion and still feel great about my religion, thank you very much.

[Moliere]

His name is Jesus Christ.

Great, a Mexican

[Pheidippides]

Who was it that posited that Tex is simply a bot produced by the church with pre-programmed answers? Was that DDD?

Or has Mike Tannehill just been lurking here under a psuedonym for this long?

[Tex]

Whoa. You are going to write off all the other stories, but stick with the most problematic one of all due to narrative consistency? (BTW, there are plenty of valid reasons to apply a different lens to OT stories written pre-800 BC - for starters, those stories were all passed down via oral tradition for centuries before being written down).

As you probably know, the stories in Genesis exhibit a nice cohesiveness.

Creation - The gods create man in their own image. Man eats fruit becoming as the gods. "Hey, these people we created are too much like us, let's kick them out of the garden and make life hard on them."

Flood - Man starts mating with angels and killing and doing all kinds of evil things. "Whoa, these humans are out of control again. Let's wipe them out and start over."

Tower - Man becomes wealthy and powerful and tries to build a tower to heaven. "Darn it, these humans are at it again. Let's mess up their languages and scatter them over the earth."

Really cool consistency in the story line. Genesis is awesome, but there is no way it is literal history. I can make that conclusion and still feel great about my religion, thank you very much.

As I said.

Who was it that posited that Tex is simply a bot produced by the church with pre-programmed answers? Was that DDD?

Or has Mike Tannehill just been lurking here under a psuedonym for this long?

Everyone here is a bot.

[frank ryan]

As I said.



Everyone here is a bot.

Soooooo boring!

[SoonerCoug]

His name is Jesus Christ.

Are you drunk posting again? Or did your account get hacked?

[TripletDaddy]

Who was it that posited that Tex is simply a bot produced by the church with pre-programmed answers? Was that DDD?

That was a long time ago. Although it appears that it could have been earlier today.

[Pelado]

Great, a Mexican

So racist. Not all Hispanics are Mexican, you know.

[Donuthole]

This explanation certainly works for stories like the talking ass or the child hating she bear

It's vitriol like this that makes me think Dehlin and Kelly might be right.

[FMCoug]

I expect it will be heavy on denial that this has anything to do with the central church, that this is all local action. And that may well be true, but I don't know that a lot of people believe that right now.

Kate said that she things that all the hostility against OW is coming from Otterson and the PR department, that they are running interference between her and a real conversation with leadership. That may also be the case, but I don't believe it. PR departments don't act without taking at least general (and usually specific) direction from the CEO, at least not in my experience.

Maybe. But I'll also say COPB is the most siloed organization I've ever been around. I wouldn't put it past them.