Warning: Discussion of religious viewpoints here. If such is unpleasant, don't read further * * * * * * Hopefully this is enough. My comments interspersed. >From: Mia McDavid <mia_mcdavid at comcast.net> >To: "dragaera at dragaera.info" <dragaera at dragaera.info> >Subject: Re: Language drift WAS: Re: Vlad and Kiera >Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:40:39 -0500 > >Philip Hart wrote: > >> >>And as far as I understand (elements of) Christianity only recently came >>to the view that 0) Xians should have a personal unintermediated >>interaction with the text 1) in a particular language 2) in a literalist >>way. >> >> >Ummm, no, no, and no. > >Back in the day, the Bible selections read at services were the only pieces >that *were* in the language of the congretation. In the Reformation, >Protestant services did head towards being entirely in the language >"understanded of the people", and there was more interest in the Bible >being taken home and studied--but this would have been impossible without >the printing press. In fact, the lack of ready copying facilities is what >tended to keep the Bible in the hands of the clergy. > >The Church of Rome certainly did its own bit of literalist >pigheadedness--viz Galileo, so this is not a new concept. What has made >certain branches of Protestantism so noxious lately has been; A), a >tendency to interpret the Bible literally and without reference to the >various underlying literary forms, such as letters, laws, myths, and >histories; B), the notion that the Bible *in and >of itself* without reference to tradition or scholarship is all that is >necessary for religious understanding, (This leads to people saying "If >King James English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!") Not a new notion, and a reading of the New Testament Scriptures supports that view. (Although not necessarily restricted to King James English (translation), and scholarship and tradition can be helpful, as well as dangerous. Forex, Church history versus the Gnostic heresy, as well as others.) ; and C), an undue emphasis on the legalisms and >bloodthirstiness of the Old Testament, as applied literalistically and with >preference for texts that support certain prejudices and phobias. The >folks that condemn homosexuality are perfectly willing to eat lobster or >wear blended fibers, even though those are both condemned with equal >harshness. > Wrong. There is a clear and distinct difference drawn especially in the New Testament between the Levitical proscriptions that were intended to set aside the Jewish nation, which were superceded by the actions of Jesus and his disciples (Gospels), and specifically deemed un-necessary for Gentile believers (book of Acts and following), and the specific sins that were explicitly proclaimed wrong in both Old and New Testaments, (sexual immorality being the one referred in this thread.) E.G.: Stoning was the punishment for sexual immorality, but not for eating of shellfish. (Old Testament) All foods are lawful (though not profitable- paraphrase for purpose of discussion), however, the sexually immoral will not see the kingdom of heaven. (New Testament) If you don't agree, I willingly accept references to the Scriptures for further examination and discussion. James Griffin, Still Another Vlad faN >HTH > >Mia > >