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

The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak. 1 Corinthians 14:34

Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 1 Corinthians 7:27

You should not use outward aids to make yourselves beautiful, such as the way you fix your hair, or the jewelry you put on, or the dresses you wear. 1 Peter 3:3

- - - Updated - - -

And behold, the Christians retreat in defeat. My thread, pg. 5.

 

And the end result of homosexuallity is---------------------------------------

 

What's the end result of heterosexual sex with a condom?

 

Is this some kind of sex-ed riddle?

 

Yeah, I rarely hear even conservative Christians says "the Bible is the word of God."

But then, you need to ask yourself what "condemn" means in this context, because you seem to be using it pretty loosely.

As far as picking and choosing, what you point to isn't cognitive dissonance. There's a reason why psychologists don't jump right to conclusions like this. You can't hold that it's cognitive dissonance unless you understand the two beliefs supposedly in conflict. And here, there isn't any conflict. The OT is superseded by the NT. The Disciples in the NT still maintain that Homosexuality is immoral, but do not maintain that we should "cast stone"s.

I'd strongly suggest making a legitimate attempt to understand beliefs before criticizing them. If you dislike a belief and THEN find reasons why, you're much less likely to make valid criticisms

 

To prevent STDs and prevent pregnancy until which-time the couple decide to have a baby, then forego the condom. Certainly you'd agree that a man and woman can procreate Certainly you'd agree and man and man or a woman and a woman cannot?

 

Welcome to pg. 6 of the thread. We have already established a few things:

1. Jesus explicitly said the OT still applies in the book of Matthew.
2. Independent of that, why are Christians constantly saying the constitution is based on the 10 commandments?
3. Independent of both of those, the NT says plenty of things that I highly doubt are observed by modern Christians. Women are not allowed to speak in Church. 1 Corinthians 14:34. You can't divorce. 1 Corinthians 7:27. Gays must be murdered (see my cite here).

Then again, not so sure the last one isn't observed by modern Christians.

 

1. I didn't say it doesn't apply, I said NT supersedes. You're referring here to Matthew 5:17, but Matthew 5:17-21 was what you might call a set up for grace because, if you read further than Matthew 5:17, he said that anyone who didn't follow the letter of the law completely would not make it into Heaven. You know, like "do not look in lust" at another. And then I hope you'll recall that Jesus said, "let he without sin throw the first stone." Now, Jesus was without sin, but did he throw a stone?

2. No idea. I rarely hear that said, I actually can't remember the last person I heard say that.
3. This is also, per the OP, off topic. But, Since we're on it, let's quickly cover this. There are a lot of portions of the Bible that aren't actually religious instruction. In one instance, Paul is giving recommendations (1 Corinthians 7:27 is shortly preceded by "I have no command" on the matter "from the Lord"). As such, he himself is giving advice, not commandments.

OK, now that I see that in 1 you are actually referring to Matthew 5:17. N

 

So says you... if you want to raise that opinion to a fact then cite your sources outside the Bible. Who taught you that the doctrine of Jesus Christ had no errors? Your parents? A preacher? The Bible? God has appeared before you and told you personally? What makes any one these sources objective and reliable?

 

Which would mean the OT doesn't still apply...
Unless you mean the OT only applies where the NT is silent. What does the NT say about working on Saturday?

Thank you for supporting my argument.

Oh please. Conservatives make that argument every time there's another thread about having the ten commandments posted on public property.

Uh...what? How is this off topic. Please elaborate.

I see so now the NT isn't law, except when it is.
Also, citation as to the bolded?
Lastly, but most importantly, you just undermined your argument. Earlier in this thread that you say that the NT maintains that homosexuality is immoral. But that isn't in the Gospels. Jesus never said homosexuality is immoral. That's mostly in the works of Paul. But as you now claim, Paul has no command from the Lord.

 

No, that's not what "supersedes" means here. It's not as if we need the NT to say, "the law on x is hereby repealed".

As far as the Sabbath, see Mark 5:27-8.

Sorry you didn't follow, but that seemed pretty straightforward to me. Don't know how else to explain it to you, but since you seem hellbent on your conclusion, regardless of what the evidence shows, I doubt it'd make any difference.

You're exaggerating.

None of these critiques were in the OP - but I suspect you felt the need to try to draw up more since you could clearly since that the original critiques made in the OP were lacking. Otherwise there's no need to try to change the critique.

^_^ As I said, "shortly preceded by...". The two verses immediately prior.

*ahem*, >>>"ON THE MATTER"<<<, which was not homosexuality.

As I've already said, you in the OP complained that conservative Christians essentially pick and choose, that they pick that homosexuality is wrong, but don't take from the Bible that they're supposed to stone homosexuals - oh what hypocrisy! Except it's not hypocrisy. The Bible, OT and NT, is clear that homosexuality is immoral. However, what Jesus AND his Disciples say about it is in congruence. Jesus said the essence of the law is to love God and your neighbor. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 that homosexuality is wrong, but that they were washed, sanctified, and justified in the blood of Jesus - meaning that before Heaven, they (Christians) are no longer marked by their sins.

 

It is not so much what is the meaning of things written in the Bible but in reality it is the verasity of what has been picked and chosen to be placed in the Bible and how it has been changed by man and in particular the Roman Biblical Canon.

As example....Revelation was a book that was rejected entry into the New Testament OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

The reason it was rejected was Revelation was considered to be too Fire and Brimstone to be in the New Testament and as well many thought the story to be idiotic and over the top.

It was finally voted in by the year 397 AD and even THEN....some people did not want it in thus it was not until 417 AD it was physically written in.

It was allowed entry into the New Testament as Politics had changed and the Roman Emperor soon to be called a Pope....wanted the FEAR that would be generated by such a story as Revelation to gain control of people.

AboveAlpha

 

Then what does it mean here?

Oh yes. Very enlightening and on point.

You really don't see how that supports my argument that the OT still applies. Anyone who doesn't follow the letter of the law completely does not make it into heaven.

We both know it's true.

Oh so your argument is that I had to come up with a complete list of EVERY critique I intend to use in this thread or I'd risk going off topic? Or create a new thread for the other ones? Haha don't be absurd.
Besides I can't help that you make things up as you go along (OT being strictly old law but the NT is law, except when it's Peter). So obviously the conversation will have to evolve as you come up with new excuses.

Once you made up a reason to dismiss those critiques, what was I supposed to do? Call you a liar? Or continue with more critiques so I could finally catch you making things up, as I have done.

Oh yes. Shortly preceded by means "two verses before." How could I forget that.
Speaking of preceding, did you notice the three words preceding "I have no command." The full line is

Sounds kind of like he's saying "ABOUT THE VIRGINS: I HAVE NO COMMAND." But sure let's just interpret that everything he said is not an actual obligation of Christians. He's basically writing half of the new testament because he has nothing better to do. And it's included in the New Testament because the early church decided it needed some filler material.

What? Wait you're kidding right? Wow. I've seen a lot of conservatives cornered before. But none have ever reacted like this.
Even if the OP wasn't about homosexuality, you seemed to think it was with your first post in this thread. You said:

So now that I have caught you in your own made up rationale, talking about homosexuality is suddenly off topic?

OFF TOPIC! Nowhere in OP did I complain about not stoning homosexuals. It was stoning people who worked on Sundays!

What does loving your God and your neighbor have to do with not being homosexual?
And you claimed Paul has no command. So what he says isn't law. But when he's condemning the gays he's suddenly the chief justice of Christianity.

 

2:27-8
27 Then he said to them, &#8220;The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.&#8221;

The 2 key is right next to the 5 key on the pad - no need to get petty about it.

Which Jesus makes pretty clear that no one does, or can. I already established that, which is why this is a preface for grace, not a commandment to follow every old law.

Oh, I suppose it's fine that you jump to new critiques - it only proves that your original premise was wrong and that, as I've said, you've bought into your conclusion not because of but in spite of the evidence.

My explaining things you don't understand isn't making excuses. It's explaining.

You could respond to the rebuttals, or you could admit you were mistaken and then open to a query.

As you haven't done.

... but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord&#8217;s mercy is trustworthy.
26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is.
27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife.

Look, read the passage carefully. "I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is... Are you free from such a commitment (marriage)? Do not look for a wife." He is still talking about virgins.

Sorry, I didn't think it quite necessary to take the elementary step of restating what I was responding to. You said:

ON THE MATTER. He has no commandment from the Lord ON THE MATTER, which was not homosexuality.

I mean, that's just rehash, but I hope that bold helps clear that up.

Not off topic, a misstatement. But oh, the point remains exactly the same - don't try to dodge.

You were saying it was picking and choosing when people decided to cite the Bible to say homosexuality is immoral, but wouldn't stone people who work on the Sabbath. To love God means to follow his ways - and that means not having sex outside of marriage (which in Christianity, is exclusive to opposite genders). Not stoning them for being gay - or stoning people for working on Sunday - is because of "love thy neighbor" and "let he who is without sin..."

To be clear, because there a couple things I suspect you'll quickly confuse here, let me explain - or "make excuse", as you say - for a couple things. In modern secular society, we define sexuality by attraction/desire. In Christianity, sexuality is defined by action.

Second, as I've already stated and cited on more than one occasion, homosexuality in this context is in no way unique by being immoral. It is immoral, as it is to steal, lie, etc.

No, he had no command >>>ON THE MATTER<<<, not "no command at all." Why the incessant straw men? Detail counts.

 

You won't convince them of anything, they will NOT listen. It is their destiny to burn in hell.......let them.

 

So says me? So says the bible. There are no contradictions within the doctrines, teachings and examples of Jesus Christ. Not one. There are contradictions within time, place and order of event THROUGHOUT the bible... but there are ZERO contradictions within the doctrines, teachings and examples set forth by Jesus Christ.

If you can find one, by all means, provide it.

 

You can prove or disprove interpretation through context and cross-referencing. I encourage you to disprove my interpretation any time you want.

Matthew 15:10-11 10 When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, "Hear and understand: 11 Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man."

Matthew 11:10-12 And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"--that they might accuse Him. Then He said to them, "What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."

No if they agree with Jesus' doctrine then it's fact.

I told you before, if the OT says something that is in agreement with Jesus Christ then it's accurate. If it says something that's not in agreement with him then it's wrong. The same thing can be said for the Hindu text the Bhagitvad Gita (or any other book). If something in the bhagitvad Gita says something that is in agreement with Jesus then it's accurate. If it says something contradictory then it's wrong.

Jesus was clearly defining what marriage is. And in fact he is correcting OT teaching here as well so it's not just that he was parroting OT teaching or only teaching Judaism. If you look at the scripture the reason the discussion starts is because they want to know about divorce. And Jesus told them that Moses was wrong for providing them a certificate of divorce and that there is only ONE acceptable reason for divorce, that is sexual immorality.

No the bible, Jesus specifically, makes it very clear that marriage is between one male and one female. By definition homosexuals (if they're engaging in homosexuality) do not fit that criteria. As such, they cannot get married unless they choose to marry someone of the opposite sex. But as Jesus said, it's better if they don't.

Yes I used disqualify but I also put it in quotations and said they're not actually DISQUALIFIED. Meaning that a male homosexual can get married... but it must be to a woman. A female homosexual can get married... but it must be to a man. However, as Jesus put it... it's BETTER if the homosexual doesn't do so. It doesn't mean he CAN'T, but it's better if he doesn't.

I just figured you could get that from my comment without me having to explain it.

Wrong. Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said to them, &#8220;Have you not read that He who made[a] them at the beginning &#8216;made them male and female,&#8217; 5 and said, &#8216;For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh&#8217;?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.&#8221;

He even clearly describes the intended relationship for marriage in the very first sentence. "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female". Not male and male or female and female... ONLY male and female. He then goes on to describe what that male and female can do and he attributes the creation of "male and female" as being the REASON for them to get married.

That's simply not true. Your assertion is false. You do not have to be a priest to commit a vow of celibacy for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake.

The people who have devoted themselves to the kingdom of heaven by becoming celibate SHOULD not marry because they're incapable of procreation. Which, unlike what homosexuals would like us to believe is an INTEGRAL part of marriage and the purpose behind marriage in the bible.

Of course it does. Homosexuals ARE the eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb who are not inclined to be with a woman or procreate. Pay attention.

 

I’ll actually hand this one to you. This does actually tend to mitigate the duty to stone people for working on the Sabbath. I guess every blind squirrel finds a nut.

Where does Jesus say this? And even if he did, you really don’t see the logical lapse here?
Premise one: You can’t go to heaven unless you follow the law.
Premise two: But nobody can follow every law
Therefore: GRACE!

None of your assertions are supported by the text. And even if they were, they make no sense.

Or that I’d rather not call you a liar and just move on to the next critique so I can prove it instead. Which I have and yet you keep ignoring (scroll down to see what I’m talking about).

Because you’re really not explaining everything. You keep claiming “JESUS MAKES PRETTY CLEAR herp derp!” when your assertions are at best tenuous interpretations without much textual support.

I have responded to the rebuttals. I have demonstrated your complete lack of logic. You say that what Paul says isn’t law, EXCEPT WHEN HE’S CONDEMNIG THE GAYS!! I’m still laughing at that.

See above.

This must be embarrassing for you. You keep forgetting which side you’re arguing. Remember that you cited this passage to show that Paul has no command, and therefore what he says isn’t necessarily law. You cited this after I showed you the passages in which Paul commanded that Women not speak in church (1 Corinthians 14:34), and made divorce a sin (1 Corinthians 7:27) and ordered that gays be murdered (Romans 1:31-32). You claim that Paul has no command. I responded that this passage is as to virgins. Now you seem to accept that. So I guess we’re back to the fact that Christian women cannot speak in Church, gays must be murdered on sight and divorce is a sin.

Then why did you cite that to begin with? Did you forget why you cited that passage? Let me help you with that.

So you cited that passage (1 Corinthians 7:27) to demonstrate that Christians need not necessarily follow every one of Paul’s brutal commands. Yet now you’re telling me that 1 Corinthians 7:27 is only relevant with regard to virgins? Why am I wasting my time arguing with you in circles? Quite frustrating.

Could you possibly be any more hypocritical? When I stray from the OP, you call me out on it as if I’m OFF TOPIC. When you make up what was in the OP and I call you out on it, I’m suddenly DODGING!

Yes. To love god also means to not speak in church if you’re a woman, murder gays on site and yada yada, according to Paul. Oh wait now you’ll pretend he has no command once again.

And a citation is needed for the bolded. I imagine it will be a citation from Paul, who suddenly has command again.

Except you’re picking and choosing between two inconsistent messages Christ delivered. Christ said he wasn’t here to change the law. But at the same time he said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. You’re choosing to ignore the former.

The only thing that confuses me here is relevance. What does this mean for our argument?

Citing the 10 commandments. Did you forget that those are no longer law? Oh I forgot that’s only when it suits you.

And you’ve yet to even establish that homosexuality is immoral. Christ was silent on the issue. Only Paul said it was immoral (assuming again we are confining ourselves to the NT, which as I have stated repeatedly is not consistent with current Church practice. The New Covenant doesn’t mean we abandon all of the old rules.) But Paul has no command. Unless you are now admitting that Paul does have command. In which case women can’t speak in church, yada yada you know the drill.

By now you’ve read the rest of my response and realize the error of your argument.


TL;DR you’ve inadvertently proven my point. When I pointed out passages authored by Paul that commanded Christians to do terrible things, you cited a few words from a passage out of their context to argue that Christians aren’t bound to Paul’s commands. Then when I demonstrated that Paul’s lack of command was limited to “on the matter of virgins” you did a 180 and suddenly Paul is the chief justice of the church. In other words, PAUL’S WORD IS THE WORD OF GOD, EXCEPT WHEN IT ISN’T. You basically keep dodging and ignoring this point hoping it will go away.

Well I have good news for you. I’m done wasting my time with you. Consider it a victory if you must. At least you got me on the Sabbath issue.

 

"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ot.htm

 

Since you insist on blatantly deliberate straw men and haven't been able to follow the sentential logic of just a few sentences, even when explained multiple times, your discussion is no longer worth my time. Tenaciously holding your views in spite of all evidence is not a well recognized method of argument.

- - - Updated - - -

And when was it accomplished? how did he fulfill them?

 

Well, this is useful and productive.

 

There are a number of problems with using Pauline Scripture. First is that this is Paul's perspective and not that of Jesus (or at least not the words of Jesus).

Paul contradicts Jesus in many places and was notably anti sex. He essentially created his own religion. Paul was also at odds with the disciples. It is no surprise that Paul and the books such as Matt and Mark are at odds with each other because these were not yet written. Paul did not know Jesus prior to his death an did not even become a Christian until many years after the death of Jesus.

The next problem is that Jesus never states anything about a getting rid of the OT. In fact he states the opposite.

Matt 5

Heaven and earth have yet to disappear last time I checked so according to Jesus OT law still applies.

The disciples followed the Law as proscribed by Jesus. Paul made things up as he went along (albeit with good intention perhaps) as he wanted inclusion of the non Jews.

So Paul, like Christians today pick and choose.

Adultery is a good example. In the OT a man could have sex with a prostitute, concubine, or sex slave and it was not adultery. A woman was the property of her husband and could not do the same. There are actually Laws from God in the OT related to these things.

Paul comes along and suddenly sex is bad.

Jesus never says many of the things that Paul says about sex. He does claim that it is wrong for a man to divorce his wife (giving her a note) because God had joined them but and the two had become one but never said anything about the man having sex with others or homosexuality.

Jesus also clarified the "your body is a temple" saying that is not what goes into ones body that make it unclean but what comes out.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus never comments on homosexuality.

If you are going to throw out all of OT law then one needs question "What was Jesus thinking when he made OT Law to begin with" This of course assumes that one believes that Jesus is God (God of Abraham) as all mainstream Christian denominations claim.

What about the law that states Deut 13

Jesus claims that humans should forgive other humans but does not rescind this law. And even if he did then one needs question "what was this so called God thinking to begin with" ?

What kind of contradictory flip flopping God is this ?

How about this Law of Jesus?

Jesus does not rescind this command. Selling your daughter as a sex slave is all good in the hood ? Selling your daughter at all as a slave ?

Jesus never makes any claims in relation to homosexuality. Fundamentalists pick and choose.

One statement that perhaps Christians should listen to from Jesus is "Judge not lest you be Judged" or what is claimed by James to be the "Royal Command" and by Jesus as the rule that sums up both the law and the prophets.

Do unto others as you would have them do to you. In other words - if you do not want others telling you what to do in the bedroom perhaps you should not be telling others what they can and can not do in the bedroom.

This rule is also known as the Golden Rule and was given by Confucius and exists in Hammurabi's law code which predates even OT law by centuries.

 

What you neglect to mention is that there were two groups of "laws" in the OT. There was the 10 commandments of God, given as part of a covenant unto salvation. Then there was the 613 Laws of Moses that are only applicable to jewish people. The reason being that Moses was one man and had to control literally hundreds of thousands of people. He had no system of law and he had no system of government. So he asked God for some help and God provided him with the 613 Laws of Moses. But they were never relevant to salvation.

In the scripture you're referring to Jesus is talking about the commandments of God. Hence why he never contradicts the 10 commandments, yet he shows us time and time and time again that the Mosaic Law is not relevant to a Christian.

Perfect example, Jesus refers to an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth which is part of the Mosaic Law and he says this teaching is contradictory to how Christians are supposed to act towards one another. He talks about the part of the mosaic law where it's a requirement to wash hands and eat kosher. Jesus says, It is not what goes into a man's mouth that condemns a man but that which comes out of a man's mouth is that which condemns a man. Saying exactly what I said. The Mosaic Law is irrelevant to salvation. The 10 commandments however are a different story.

 

All I have to do is watch Christians on this very form argue on points of doctrine to see the subjectivity. A simple google for Christian doctrine returns subjective results. A look at the hundreds or thousands of Christian denominations speak of the subjective nature of Christian doctrine.

 

Truth is not subjective. The doctrines of Jesus Christ are not subjective. The truth is the truth, regardless of opinion. If another Christian and I disagree then there are only 3 options. Either I am right and he is wrong. Or I am wrong and he is right. Or we are both wrong. But we both CANNOT be right.

As such, you can either prove or disprove an interpretation through context and cross-referencing.