It is crucial to dispel the myth that any book, the Bible included, says something all by itself. Meaning arises in the reader, not in the text; and the meaning which arises from any given text is contingent upon the context in which it is read. In the supersessionist context, which has been handed down to us by two millenia of tradition, Falwell's comments are not Biblical; more clearly, they are not Christian -- since Christianity is not reducible to the Bible (but rather, the Bible is reducible to Christianity).
When the Bible is divorced from Tradition, the full degree of erroneous exegesis is permitted; when the context-dependant nature of meaning is denied, exegesis becomes unquestionable dogma by being falsely raised to the level of divine truth.
Gotta love Falwell/Robertson's appreciation of history. 1812? I can understand that they ignore Hawaii because it wasn't officially a state yet, but what about the Civil War? How can they claim the Lord was protecting us during that bloodbath? Were they consistent, they could at least do the politically correct thing and say that 1861-65 was our punishment for slavery...
"Is there any way to demonstrate that Falwell's and Robertson's comments are NOT in line with the Bible?"
I think any discussion of evil and suffering and God's hand in it is wrong unless you quote from Job copiously. Falwell and Robertson are making the same mistakes of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar in insisting that the suffering our nation went through on that day was somehow demanded by justice and God's wrath. Remember that Job was given the gift of suffering precisely because he was "blameless and upright," (1:8) not because he was being punished for some specific evil act on his own part.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2004-08-19 02:51 pm
no subject
When the Bible is divorced from Tradition, the full degree of erroneous exegesis is permitted; when the context-dependant nature of meaning is denied, exegesis becomes unquestionable dogma by being falsely raised to the level of divine truth.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
"Is there any way to demonstrate that Falwell's and Robertson's comments are NOT in line with the Bible?"
I think any discussion of evil and suffering and God's hand in it is wrong unless you quote from Job copiously. Falwell and Robertson are making the same mistakes of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar in insisting that the suffering our nation went through on that day was somehow demanded by justice and God's wrath. Remember that Job was given the gift of suffering precisely because he was "blameless and upright," (1:8) not because he was being punished for some specific evil act on his own part.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)