[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Innoc

Stick to your examples ekiM. Read the passages and tell me if they're ambiguous. You chose them so let's see it through to the end.

No. I simply am not interested in this discussion getting diverted into a lengthy aside analysing the text of the Bible. Attemping to change the topic to a verse-by-verse analysis is simply a distracting tactic. Neither of us are expert theologians. I'm sure we've both read the relevant sections of the text and formed out own opinions on what they mean. However, our opinions on how to read those section simply are not germane to the larger point which you are desperately attempting not to address. It is not necessary to derail the thread to acknowledge that Christian scripture is interpreted by different denominations in different ways and, as such, must be ambiguous.

Different denominations of Christianity interpret the Bible in different ways and have their own interpretation of divine moral framework. I chose those examples as areas where there clearly is ambiguity, as evidenced by the stark contrast between the stance of different Christian denominations. According to you, contraception is not inherently immoral. According to the catholic church, it is. According to some denominations, being homosexual is immoral. According to some denominations, being homosexual can't be helped but acting on those feelings is immoral. The US Episcopal Church ordained Gene Robinson.

It's patently obvious that these different denominations have their own interpretations of the divine moral framework. You simply cannot honestly deny that. It doesn't require us to compare notes on the Bible to come to that conclusion.

Now, you can claim that there is only one way to interpret Christian scripture and these liberal new-time sects (the Catholic church, et al) are simply making stuff up. Or you can admit that there is more than one valid way to interpret Christian scripture.

Either way, my original point (which you've worked so hard to try and have us forget) is that even if we allow that the Christian God exists as described in the Bible; that there is an absolute divine moral framework; and that God tried to tell us what that framework is through his messengers.. mankind cannot use that framework directly. Man uses his own interpretation. Man's interpretation of a divine moral framework is not somehow inherently less malleable than secular moral frameworks.

Now obviously you think *your* interpretation of what the Bible says is the correct one. According to you, the divine moral framework says that contraception is OK and homoexuality is not OK. According to other Christians' interpretations, the exact opposite of those individual points can be true. Am I to believe that your interpretation is correct and those other Christians simply don't "get" the divine moral framework? OK, we could spend an eternity analysing passages of scripture and you could argue why those passages support your position. This wouldn't change that your interpretation of the Bible is just that - an interpretation. It seems like the best interpretation to you, because you came up with it and because it confirms your existing beliefs and prejudices. However unless you are claiming that you, personally, have a special insight into the mind of God that is not available to all those Christians who have built a different moral framework from scripture than you.. there is no particular reason for anyone to accept your interpretation as the true interpretation. And if your interpretation is subjective and personal to you then basing it on what you, as a falliable human, think is the divine moral framework does not make it more absolute than secular frameworks. It's still subjective.

There is no objectively correct interprtation of what the Bible tells us of the divine moral framework. There are only subjective interpretations, created by falliable humans.

Originally Posted by Innoc

Are you being deliberately evasive in not answering?

Coming from someone who spent half a dozen posts trying to change the subject so he didn't have to answer a question..

Originally Posted by Innoc

No. You're implying hypocracy where none exists. We never finished the two points he raised and to expect to dilute the conversation into the broader macro question without finishing these two points is unreasonable.

No, to attempt to divert the conversation onto discussing individual passages of scripture is unreasonable. Our individual interpetations (and I'm sure as hell they'd be different) are not germane to the point of this subthread - does positing a divine moral framework make morality less subjective?

Originally Posted by Innoc

As far as the Catholic Church goes I see quite a few things they do that I cannot see where they are supported by scripture. It's not a matter subject to interpretation...it's flat out not supported....period.

You hadn't mentioned that you are the ultimate arbiter of what the scripture says and have a perfect knowledge of the mind of God and his moral framework. If you'd have said that earlier things would be much clearer. Someone should probably notify the Pope so that he can put the Catholic Church on the one true path, as told by Innoc. Once they're onside we can work on converting the rest of them to your one true vision.

Originally Posted by Innoc

ekiM still hasn't shown where the scripture is ambiguous on his two issues.

Rather than do what you want and turn this into an amatuer analysis of scripture, I defer to my learned friends in the huge number of denominations that don't agree with your interpretation of the Bible. You can claim that you're smarter than all of them put together, and I'd probably believe you, but you might have a hard time convincing them.