Christian Conservatives: The Bible is the Final Word of God, except when it isn't

Continuing a discussion from this thread. Basically, Christian conservatives think that we should accept that the parts of the bible condemning homosexuality as the word of God. But we should ignore the parts of the bible that say people should be stoned to death for working on Sundays or touching the skin of a pig.

When progressives suggest looking past the bible to keep up with the times, the Christian Conservatives say that the word of god is UNWAVERING. But when progressives respond "Okay, are you ready to forfeit football," the Christian Conservatives say "we have to look past the exact text of the bible to keep up with the times."

There's a phrase for this, folks. That must be uncomfortable.

 

Great post,,, LOLOL..........

 

Uhhh I'm not sure who you've been talking to but your assertion is incorrect.

The bible is NOT the Word of God. The bible is the INSPIRED Word of God.

The Word of God is Jesus Christ. The bible makes a clear differentiation between the Word of God and the INSPIRED Word of God.

 

[Citation Needed]

In either event it sounds like a pretty useless distinction to draw. Assume for a moment we replaced "Word of God" with "Inspired Word of God" in my post. What is changed?

If anything, it helps my argument. Jesus didn't condemn the gays.

 

John 1:1 Clearly describes Jesus as the Word of God.

2 Tim 3:16 provides the basis for the bible being the Inspired Word of God.

Well there's a big difference. Jesus is the Word of God. That means his doctrine is infallible and he was the ONLY individual from Genesis to Revelation to had the duty to bring the PERFECT Word of God to man.

But the bible is the INSPIRED Word of God. Now what does inspired mean? If I'm a painter and I walk outside of my house and I see a scene which inspires me and I walk back inside of my house and I paint a picture of that scene. It may not be EXACTLY what inspired me, but it will be my INTERPRETATION of what inspired me. That's why you will see errors and inconsistencies in the bible but there are none within the doctrines, teachings and examples set forth by Jesus Christ.

I disagree.

While Jesus obviously never called them homosexuals, he did describe them and reference them and state it's better for them not to marry.

Matthew 19:10-12 His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry." But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it."

Now we have three different groups of people being discussed here. We have the eunuchs born thus from their mother's womb, eunuchs made eunuchs by men and eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. I'll discuss them out of order because 2 of them seem obvious to me.

1. Eunuchs made eunuchs by men. These are the traditional meaning of eunuch. Someone who had been castrated by another man, usually so that they can serve in some sort of guard/servant position for a female so that he had no desire to have sex with her.

2. Eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. This is someone who has chosen to remain celibate for religious reasons like priests.

And the one I'd like to draw your attention to.

3. Eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb. It seems obvious to me that Jesus is referring to homosexuals. People who were born without the desire to have sex with a woman. Now I suppose one could make the argument that Jesus was referring to an EXCEEDINGLY rare medical condition in which a male is born without testicles... but it doesn't make sense. It's simply not a common enough problem for anyone to have to address as it occurs in only a fraction of a percentage of the population... much less for Jesus to address it. But even ignoring that... why would a medical condition preclude you from getting married? It simply doesn't make sense.

However, if he was referring to homosexuals, (which I feel it's obvious he was) then it makes perfect sense. They are born without a desire to have sex with women. And since God and Jesus both have made it clear that marriage is explicitly between one woman and one man... and since the homosexual does not desire to have sex with women... then it would make since that it "is better not to marry" for the homosexual.

 

Except it doesn't clearly establish this in any version. Jesus isn't even referenced in John 1:1.

http://biblehub.com/john/1-1.htm

http://biblehub.com/2_timothy/3-16.htm

Sure, let's just ignore all of those passages starting with “God said,” or “Thus says the Lord." Ex. 14:1; 20:1; Lev. 4:1; Num. 4:1; Deut. 4:2; 32:48; Isa. 1:10, 24; Jer. 1:11; Ezek. 1:3

And then there's what Paul said. 1 Cor. 14:37 "If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, he should acknowledge that what I write to you is the Lord’s command."

And there's more verses that claim to be the word of God: Deuteronomy 6:6-9, 17-18; Joshua 1:8-9; 8:32-35; 2 Samuel 22:31; Ps. 1:2; 12:6; 19:7-11; 93:5; 119:9, 11, 18, 89-93, 130; Prov. 30:5-6; Matthew 5:17-19; 22:29; Mark 13:31; Luke 16:17; John 2:22; 5:24; 10:35; Acts 17:11; Romans 10:17; Colossians 3:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 2:15; 3:15-17; 1 Peter 1:23-25; 2 Peter 3:15-16; Revelation 1:2; 22:18.

But sure. Go ahead and hang your hat on one verse from the Second Epistle to Timothy. I'd hate for you to have to acknowledge inconvenient evidence to the contrary.

On top of that, 2 Timothy is not a Gospel. By your logic, it is merely the inspired word of God. So why should we allow the "inspired word of God" to dictate what is and is not the word of God?

How convenient. So basically everything outside of the Gospels is not necessarily the word of God, EXCEPT FOR 2 TIMOTHY WHICH TELLS US THAT JESUS WAS THE WORD OF GOD. Are you beginning to see how little sense this makes?

Oh yes. CLEARLY that's what he meant. He couldn't have been referring to physical disability or other deformities.

 

Whatever... your post was witty and on point.

 

Semantics. The word of God is still an interpretation of man after the fact.

 

Jesus is the Word of God.

Which Jesus? There seem to be several floating around, and that's just in what is CURRENTLY called the Bible, a book (in its various versions designed, revised, and edited by a committee). That does not include those versions of religion judged HERETICAL!!! by other committees.

 

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Being a eunuch has nothing to do with whether or not you want to have sex with women, and everything to do with whether or not you have nuts.

Jesus was a very smart guy and an educated healer. He knew the difference between eunuchs and homosexuals.

You're just reading what you want to read. That's blasphemy. Revelations 22:18.

 

Uhhhh try reading a little further lol It STARTS at 1:1 and ends on verse 14.

Easily because Jesus backs up Timothy. Look at Matthew 5. The ENTIRE chapter of Matthew 5 is dedicated to Jesus Christ correcting OT teaching. If the bible was the Word of God then there would be no correction. But because it is the INSPIRED Word of God, it needed to be corrected.

No that's incorrect. As Christians we follow the doctrines, teachings and examples set forth by Jesus Christ. Anything that agrees with Jesus Christ is perfectly fine. Anything that contradicts Jesus' doctrine is incorrect. That includes anything from the OT, NT or anywhere else.

As I said, you could attempt to make that argument but it doesn't make sense. Not only are they not statistically significant (as they would have been a minute fraction of a percentage of the population) but why would have a physical deformity disqualify you from marriage?

Your argument doesn't make sense. What DOES make sense is if he was talking about homosexuals.

I'm sorry you don't like that, but that's too bad.

 

In their defense, I have met two Christian Conservatives who don't know who Payton Manning is. That's more than one so it isn't just all anecdotal.

 

That is why Sola Scriptura is a faulty belief system. It is also why the Orthodox Church understands that scripture is just one third of the knowledge of the Church.

 

You're wrong. The point he was making is about their DESIRE to have sex with women. Hence not only those who were born eunuchs, but also those who made themselves eunuchs for heaven's sake. He clearly wasn't talking about people who cut their balls off to go to heaven. Don't be ridiculous.

He was obviously talking about those who CHOSE to be celibate and attempt to remove the desire of wanting to have sex with women.

The same is true for the eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb. He was referring to the fact they didn't want to have sex with women. ie homosexuals.

- - - Updated - - -

Not true.

The bible has errors. The doctrine of Jesus Christ does not.

 

I am not defending Christians, but you don't understand. The law the jews lived under was cancelled out with the appearance of Christ. Like circumcision, the dietary laws. The 10 commandments survived, but Christ added a new one. To love the other as you love yourself.

Why do you think Christians didn't follow those innumerable old testament laws? There was a reason for that.

Conservative Christians can be attacked in regards to what their founder said, so you don't need to go to jewish law to do that, nor should you. Just his feelings towards the rich, which the conservatives defend and support is enough to show the hypocrisy of conservative Christians.

So a rich Christian isn't a Christian. I am not saying all Christians are poor, or should be poor. But Christ liked the poor much more than he liked the rich. To have enough to thrive is fine, but to hoard wealth isn't. For for a man to get rich and stay rich means his heart is in the wrong place, and is all caught up on worldly possessions. They are attached to wealth, and spend most of their time making more of it, or hoarding it. You cannot serve god and mammon. Conservatives always skip fast over that part of the teaching. They have to.

 

He clearly was talking about people who cut their balls off to go to Heaven. That's exactly what He said. "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

So in other words, it's exactly like the OP claims -- you're agreeing with the bible when it agrees with you. Your own judgment and interpretation supercedes it.

 

Maybe you should have said that instead of:

At least this part of your argument is internally consistent.

That's exactly what I said. Everything outside of the Gospels is not necessarily the word of God. Still very convenient.

BTW, what did Jesus say about touching pig skin or working on Sunday? What if Jesus was silent on these issues? Does that mean we can still accept what the old testament says on them?

Note that I don't for one moment buy in to your Word of God / Inspired Word of God Dichotomy. It is a fiction based on two or three verses in the bible that deliberately ignores other verses to the contrary (see the list I provided).

Why would being gay disqualify you from marriage? How did you possibly not see this retort coming?

Moreover, why would being a priest disqualify you from marriage? Why would being castrated disqualify you from marriage?

It does make sense when you put more than 2 seconds of thought into it.

No please keep going. I don't ever expect to convince you of anything. But I hope this discussion will inform other bigots of the error of their ways.

 

Read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis. The Bible was written by man, but inspired by God. To me it is like a handbook for Jews and Christians. Some things are certainly outdated like stonings(tell that to Muslims), but the main ideas are timeless. The Constitution is the handbook of our government. Some say some of it is outdated like the need for weapons. Those who wrote the Constitution NEEDED guns to hunt with and today we don't, but the main ideas are still timeless. Everyone's relationship with God is different. What you put into it is what you get out of it. The Bible is a sacramental which constantly reminds me of my religion. The cross serves the same purpose. Just because you don't personally believe does not give you the right to make fun of and denigrate those who do. According to many studies, Republicans tend to be happier than Democrats by a margin of 44% to 25%. I think that is in part due to our belief in God. Don't knock it unless you've tried it.

 

No it's called context and cross-referencing.

Please explain to me how cutting your balls off gets you into heaven. And please explain to me how it's even REMOTELY relevant to anything else Jesus talks about.

 

Different interpretations of the Bible are usually based on some form of authority, such as the epistles of Peter and Paul, the only reason you think this is hypocrisy is because you think yourself too good to study what you are attacking.

 

So your argument basically amounts to "READ A BOOK." How very convenient. Thank you for your non-contribution.

 

It's not about convenience... it's about fact.

He said that eating kosher doesn't matter. He also said that the point of the Sabbath is to do the will of God... not to avoid work. Obviously these are paraphrasing. I'm supposed to be cutting grass lol

Because there's an easy answer. Jesus explicitly stated that marriage is between one man and one woman. As such gays, by definition, cannot get married in the sight of God. As such anytime they engage in sexual activity they're fornicating.

Very easy. First of all, you are not DISQUALIFIED from being married. Jesus says it is BETTER for you not to marry if you belong to one of these three. But if you were to get married, you would be required to get married to a woman anyway (if you're a guy).

Second, being a priest doesn't disqualify you. Taking a vow of celibacy would "disqualify" you as, unlike what homosexuals and their advocates want you to think, marriage and procreation are irrevocably intertwined.

As far as being castrated A eunuch is a man who (by the common definition of the term) may have been castrated, typically early enough in his life for this change to have major hormonal consequences. In some ancient texts, "eunuch" may refer to a man who is not castrated but who is impotent, celibate, or otherwise not inclined to marry and procreate. The reason it's better for the eunuch to not marry is because he's incapable of that same procreation as before.

I think you need more than 2 seconds of thought.

Don't worry, I have every intention of continuing to show you to be incorrect.

 

So if the bible was written by man, why do we hold such reverence for the anti-gay lines in the bible?

Sorry but your post is completely unresponsive.

 

I see you have run into the all to common problem of the self proclaimed Christian Fundamentalist who has all kinds of beliefs based on man made fundamentalist dogma but little knowledge of the Bible.

 

No really, when global warmists get into an argument, they say, study climatology.

When evolutionists argue with creationists, they say, study evolution.

But when someone like you just assumes that mainstream Christianity is logically inconsistent, you recoil at the suggestion that you actually study what you're attacking. If you don't see a problem here it can only mean that you have no integrity.