The last three lines of the Flinstone's theme song:Applying your "I'll just read it and believe what it says" method of interpretation I come to the conclusion that I would never let my children watch the immoral cartoon. No doubt, when the song writer wrote "we'll have a gay old time" he plainly wrote that Flinstones and the Rubbles were intending to have homosexual escapades...
We'll have a doo time
a Yabba Doo time
We'll have a gay old time
1. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music.Soooo... I can safely (and rightly) interpret "we'll have a gay old time" as
2. bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments.
3. given to or abounding in social or other pleasures: a gay social season.
4. licentious; dissipated; wanton: The baron is a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies.
we'll have a merry time, full of a lively moodWhew! Good thing too, lest Dobson links Spongebob to Barney Rubble.
I found this idea on one site:
Literal: The plain and simple meaning of the text. Jesus supported the literal method, among others.The author is trying to make a point of the (unsupportable) conclusion that the Church used the literal method to interpret the Bible until the 2nd or 3rd centuries when the allegorical method took over.
If you are a Christian that believes in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ it should be interesting for you to know that this truth was basically hidden for over a thousand years before the reformation because of a decision made early on not to interpret Bible prophecy literally.
The irony in this authors comments is that while the author decries the allegorical method because it requires a secret meaning that only the super spiritual can understand, he fails to realize that this dispensational way of interpreting the Bible requires it own gnosis, or secret meaning. After all, the secret pre-tribulational rapture that is so prominent in futurist thinking, is unknown in the Church until the 19th century. Even then it took decades for it to permeate out into a larger community. It has never been universally recognized by the Church, but is largely relegated to Bible colleges and independent churches of the no creed but Christ genre.
The author tries to link the rise of dispensationalism to the Protestant reformation, but the fact is that almost every Protestant church or denomination with legitimate, direct ties to the reformation (from Lutheran to Reformed to Presbyterian) has rejected and warned its members about the many, pernicious errors of dispensationalism.
The bottom line is that the literal method (as presently expressed) was not the method of Jesus, nor of the apostles, nor of the early Church fathers. The literal method was the method of various heretical groups, like the Ebionites and Arians.
If you wish to understand the relationship between futurist dispensationalism and the literal method I suggest you read Dispensationalism: Consistent Literalism by Grover Gunn, or The Myth of "Consistent Literalism" by Jack Van Deventer.
Van Deventer concludes his article with this statement:
These inconsistencies have caused many to distance themselves from dispensational literalism. Various "progressive dispensationalists" have rejected "as inadequate the strict literalist hermeneutic of earlier thinkers [and] no longer adhere to the sharp distinction between Israel and the church, but place both under the one program of God for the world. . . ." Others have rejected as "too simplistic" the literalism of their predecessors. This confusion over literalism has dispensationalists debating among themselves, searching for definition, and questioning the essentials of their system.
I don't know when queers started calling themselves gay but my Grandmother never heard of it...In the 60's and 70's she used the term often and it never meant queer...
So hermeneutics taught you that the bible is valid for history and not much else??? Hermeneutics teaches you which verses to take literally and which one not to???