Will the Bible/Christianity evolve to accept homosexuality?

[USN_Hokie]

To me this boils down to the old question of whether or not the bible should be taken literally. Those who say yes will, of course say that Christianity will never accept homosexuality. Those who say no, can make allowances for homosexuals within Christianity.

This is an old debate stretching back at least 1600 years.

Agreed. I tend to side with those who believe that God gave us free will and the capability to reason for a reason... rather than those that point to writings over 2000 years old than can be contradictory at times.

What good is exercise/demonstration of free will if there are no rules?

who said there were no rules?

It's a logical conclusion from VoiceOfTreason's post.

[HokieJoe]

To me this boils down to the old question of whether or not the bible should be taken literally. Those who say yes will, of course say that Christianity will never accept homosexuality. Those who say no, can make allowances for homosexuals within Christianity.

This is an old debate stretching back at least 1600 years.

Agreed. I tend to side with those who believe that God gave us free will and the capability to reason for a reason... rather than those that point to writings over 2000 years old than can be contradictory at times.

What good is exercise/demonstration of free will if there are no rules?

who said there were no rules?

Making up the rules as you go along obviates the need for free will in this context.

[USN_Hokie]

I've been really intrigued by your perspective in this thread.

Do you have any titles in particular that you would recommend reading?

Particularly related to what? I've rambled quite a bit in this thread. )

In no particular order, I've found David Wells extremely helpful of assessing the current condition of evangelicalism. His trilogy is probably his best work. Losing Our Virtue, Above All Earthly Pow'rs, The Courage to be Protestant,

Ian Murray's, Evangelicalism Divided is also pretty helpful on the pragmatic angle.

Eph 5 stuff comes from a bunch of commentaries and books on marriage by John Piper and Tim Keller.

DA Carson's, Gagging of God, The Intolerance of Tolerance, Christ and Culture Revisited are also helpful on some of these matters.

Just a few that come to mind.

Would you recommend "The Courage to be Protestant" (the only one of the ones you mentioned that I see on Audible.com) to someone who doesn't have "extensive" knowledge of the bible per se? IE - what level of knowledge does the author assume the reader possesses?

I also saw this from DA Carson...

http://www.audible.com/pd/Religion-Spir ... c1_1_1_ttl

[Uprising]

As far as the sanctity of the bible, our friends over at conservapedia are currently rewriting it to get all that liberal Jesus bs out of it.
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

Their rewrite of the Bible has been roundly criticized by Christians and conservatives. Some conservative doing something != all conservatives (or even very many conservatives) support it.

Then we agree, and I never said that. I just wanted to put to bed the notion around this thread that only liberals are guilty of rewriting/interpreting THE word.

(Below isn't meant to be directed at you, but a general statement/observation about this thread and a few others.)

However, if there is someone making projections about the bible in order to push their version of a theocracy on America, that person is almost certainly a conservative. It is truly cowardice and lazy to cloak opinion as belief. It insists that that opinion is above reproach, and the person is at no fault for holding it. The rest of us have to defend our positions as if they don't come from some authority. We expect our positions/opinions to be met with skepticism.

The social justice crowd constantly pushes their brand of faith through legislation.

I have no problem with anyone attempting to legislate their positions. I do expect them to be able to provide reasons other than by invoking their god's will.

[HokieJoe]

As far as the sanctity of the bible, our friends over at conservapedia are currently rewriting it to get all that liberal Jesus bs out of it.
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

Their rewrite of the Bible has been roundly criticized by Christians and conservatives. Some conservative doing something != all conservatives (or even very many conservatives) support it.

Then we agree, and I never said that. I just wanted to put to bed the notion around this thread that only liberals are guilty of rewriting/interpreting THE word.

(Below isn't meant to be directed at you, but a general statement/observation about this thread and a few others.)

However, if there is someone making projections about the bible in order to push their version of a theocracy on America, that person is almost certainly a conservative. It is truly cowardice and lazy to cloak opinion as belief. It insists that that opinion is above reproach, and the person is at no fault for holding it. The rest of us have to defend our positions as if they don't come from some authority. We expect our positions/opinions to be met with skepticism.

The social justice crowd constantly pushes their brand of faith through legislation.

I have no problem with anyone attempting to legislate their positions. I do expect them to be able to provide reasons other than by invoking their god's will.

They do exactly what you claimed only conservatives are 'guilty' of, no? IOW, there is no "reason" other than their particular moral code.

[HvilleHokie]

To me this boils down to the old question of whether or not the bible should be taken literally. Those who say yes will, of course say that Christianity will never accept homosexuality. Those who say no, can make allowances for homosexuals within Christianity.

This is an old debate stretching back at least 1600 years.

Agreed. I tend to side with those who believe that God gave us free will and the capability to reason for a reason... rather than those that point to writings over 2000 years old than can be contradictory at times.

What good is exercise/demonstration of free will if there are no rules?

who said there were no rules?

It's a logical conclusion from VoiceOfTreason's post.

i disagree. just because you don't accept every rule in the bible doesn't mean you live a ruleless life.

1) even if one doesn't take the bible literally, one can derive some pretty definite rules from it.
2) rules can be derived from deductive reasoning.

[USN_Hokie]

i disagree. just because you don't accept every rule in the bible doesn't mean you live a ruleless life.

1) even if one doesn't take the bible literally, one can derive some pretty definite rules from it.
2) rules can be derived from deductive reasoning.

I didn't make the blanket statement (free will / "reason" > words from some old book), he did.

[Uprising]

As far as the sanctity of the bible, our friends over at conservapedia are currently rewriting it to get all that liberal Jesus bs out of it.
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

Their rewrite of the Bible has been roundly criticized by Christians and conservatives. Some conservative doing something != all conservatives (or even very many conservatives) support it.

Then we agree, and I never said that. I just wanted to put to bed the notion around this thread that only liberals are guilty of rewriting/interpreting THE word.

(Below isn't meant to be directed at you, but a general statement/observation about this thread and a few others.)

However, if there is someone making projections about the bible in order to push their version of a theocracy on America, that person is almost certainly a conservative. It is truly cowardice and lazy to cloak opinion as belief. It insists that that opinion is above reproach, and the person is at no fault for holding it. The rest of us have to defend our positions as if they don't come from some authority. We expect our positions/opinions to be met with skepticism.

The social justice crowd constantly pushes their brand of faith through legislation.

I have no problem with anyone attempting to legislate their positions. I do expect them to be able to provide reasons other than by invoking their god's will.

They do exactly what you claimed only conservatives are 'guilty' of, no? IOW, there is no "reason" other than their particular moral code.

If anyone (conservative, liberal, or otherwise) attempts to legislate by saying "this is the way it should be because my god says so" it would be met with equal scorn by me. That method accepts no responsibility for it's claims, thus cowardice. It requires no other thought or reasoning, thus lazy. It is no different and no better than the reasoning behind any other theocracy.

Arriving at a particular moral code without a god is not the same as having one forced on you by a god.

[awesome guy]

If anyone (conservative, liberal, or otherwise) attempts to legislate by saying "this is the way it should be because my god says so" it would be met with equal scorn by me. That method accepts no responsibility for it's claims, thus cowardice. It requires no other thought or reasoning, thus lazy. It is no different and no better than the reasoning behind any other theocracy.

Arriving at a particular moral code without a god is not the same as having one forced on you by a god.

It's no different than the left's favorite of "it's the right thing to do" or "people are starving" nonsense. You guys like to put a show about being reasoned, but it's really emotions not thought through.

[awesome guy]

i disagree. just because you don't accept every rule in the bible doesn't mean you live a ruleless life.

1) even if one doesn't take the bible literally, one can derive some pretty definite rules from it.
2) rules can be derived from deductive reasoning.

How can you derive rules from the jello like substance you present scriptures as? It's selective reading and trying to conform God to your will instead of you conforming to his. Being part of a region means having to accept some things you don't understand or agree with. That's the challenge and part of the humility that's lacking in the "reason" over scripture argument. I look at it more like excuses than reason, thus the mocking quotes.

[USN_Hokie]

If anyone (conservative, liberal, or otherwise) attempts to legislate by saying "this is the way it should be because my god says so" it would be met with equal scorn by me. That method accepts no responsibility for it's claims, thus cowardice. It requires no other thought or reasoning, thus lazy. It is no different and no better than the reasoning behind any other theocracy.

Arriving at a particular moral code without a god is not the same as having one forced on you by a god.

You're just describing "begging the question" - a favorite logical fallacy of the left and the CiC in particular. Hell, even the fracking title of this thread (....using the word "evolve") begs the question.

[HokieJoe]

[quote="BigDaveTheir rewrite of the Bible has been roundly criticized by Christians and conservatives. Some conservative doing something != all conservatives (or even very many conservatives) support it.

Then we agree, and I never said that. I just wanted to put to bed the notion around this thread that only liberals are guilty of rewriting/interpreting THE word.

(Below isn't meant to be directed at you, but a general statement/observation about this thread and a few others.)

However, if there is someone making projections about the bible in order to push their version of a theocracy on America, that person is almost certainly a conservative. It is truly cowardice and lazy to cloak opinion as belief. It insists that that opinion is above reproach, and the person is at no fault for holding it. The rest of us have to defend our positions as if they don't come from some authority. We expect our positions/opinions to be met with skepticism.

The social justice crowd constantly pushes their brand of faith through legislation.

I have no problem with anyone attempting to legislate their positions. I do expect them to be able to provide reasons other than by invoking their god's will.

They do exactly what you claimed only conservatives are 'guilty' of, no? IOW, there is no "reason" other than their particular moral code.

If anyone (conservative, liberal, or otherwise) attempts to legislate by saying "this is the way it should be because my god says so" it would be met with equal scorn by me. That method accepts no responsibility for it's claims, thus cowardice. It requires no other thought or reasoning, thus lazy. It is no different and no better than the reasoning behind any other theocracy.

Arriving at a particular moral code without a god is not the same as having one forced on you by a god.[/quote]


Eh, I'd say it's just substituting who 'God' is in the equation.

[Uprising]

If anyone (conservative, liberal, or otherwise) attempts to legislate by saying "this is the way it should be because my god says so" it would be met with equal scorn by me. That method accepts no responsibility for it's claims, thus cowardice. It requires no other thought or reasoning, thus lazy. It is no different and no better than the reasoning behind any other theocracy.

Arriving at a particular moral code without a god is not the same as having one forced on you by a god.

It's no different than the left's favorite of "it's the right thing to do" or "people are starving" nonsense. You guys like to put a show about being reasoned, but it's really emotions not thought through.

There is truth to that. "It's the right thing to do" is a cop-out and assumes that the person is coming from a position of authority. But rightfully, those types of statements are often met with skepticism. And if those that make such statements are forced to dig deeper, they may find their reasoning lies in evidence. If not, I suspect their 'beliefs' are more susceptible to change.

Religion, on the other hand, is afforded a greater level of privilege than any other dogma. People that are challenged can often point to no other reasoning than chapter and verse and that is suffice to many. Those that challenge the authority of religion are far too often vilified.

I disagree about "people are starving."

[USN_Hokie]

If anyone (conservative, liberal, or otherwise) attempts to legislate by saying "this is the way it should be because my god says so" it would be met with equal scorn by me. That method accepts no responsibility for it's claims, thus cowardice. It requires no other thought or reasoning, thus lazy. It is no different and no better than the reasoning behind any other theocracy.

Arriving at a particular moral code without a god is not the same as having one forced on you by a god.

It's no different than the left's favorite of "it's the right thing to do" or "people are starving" nonsense. You guys like to put a show about being reasoned, but it's really emotions not thought through.

There is truth to that. "It's the right thing to do" is a cop-out and assumes that the person is coming from a position of authority. But rightfully, those types of statements are often met with skepticism. And if those that make such statements are forced to dig deeper, they may find their reasoning lies in evidence. If not, I suspect their 'beliefs' are more susceptible to change.

Religion, on the other hand, is afforded a greater level of privilege than any other dogma. People that are challenged can often point to no other reasoning than chapter and verse and that is suffice to many. Those that challenge the authority of religion are far too often vilified.

I disagree about "people are starving."

Ahem....


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... ing-to-do/

[Uprising]

If anyone (conservative, liberal, or otherwise) attempts to legislate by saying "this is the way it should be because my god says so" it would be met with equal scorn by me. That method accepts no responsibility for it's claims, thus cowardice. It requires no other thought or reasoning, thus lazy. It is no different and no better than the reasoning behind any other theocracy.

Arriving at a particular moral code without a god is not the same as having one forced on you by a god.

You're just describing "begging the question" - a favorite logical fallacy of the left and the CiC in particular. Hell, even the fracking title of this thread (....using the word "evolve") begs the question.

No, I'm not. I'm responding to exactly that. When invoking an authoritative position on something, one is "begging the question." Who cares that it is said in the bible? Tell me why you think it applies here without inserting more dogma.
-Or who cares that it is the "right thing to do?" Give me the reasons.

The conclusion can not be one of the premises.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Uprising]

If anyone (conservative, liberal, or otherwise) attempts to legislate by saying "this is the way it should be because my god says so" it would be met with equal scorn by me. That method accepts no responsibility for it's claims, thus cowardice. It requires no other thought or reasoning, thus lazy. It is no different and no better than the reasoning behind any other theocracy.

Arriving at a particular moral code without a god is not the same as having one forced on you by a god.

It's no different than the left's favorite of "it's the right thing to do" or "people are starving" nonsense. You guys like to put a show about being reasoned, but it's really emotions not thought through.

There is truth to that. "It's the right thing to do" is a cop-out and assumes that the person is coming from a position of authority. But rightfully, those types of statements are often met with skepticism. And if those that make such statements are forced to dig deeper, they may find their reasoning lies in evidence. If not, I suspect their 'beliefs' are more susceptible to change.

Religion, on the other hand, is afforded a greater level of privilege than any other dogma. People that are challenged can often point to no other reasoning than chapter and verse and that is suffice to many. Those that challenge the authority of religion are far too often vilified.

I disagree about "people are starving."

Ahem....


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... ing-to-do/

OK... Now what? He is as guilty as many others.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[USN_Hokie]

If anyone (conservative, liberal, or otherwise) attempts to legislate by saying "this is the way it should be because my god says so" it would be met with equal scorn by me. That method accepts no responsibility for it's claims, thus cowardice. It requires no other thought or reasoning, thus lazy. It is no different and no better than the reasoning behind any other theocracy.

Arriving at a particular moral code without a god is not the same as having one forced on you by a god.

You're just describing "begging the question" - a favorite logical fallacy of the left and the CiC in particular. Hell, even the fracking title of this thread (....using the word "evolve") begs the question.

No, I'm not. I'm responding to exactly that. When invoking an authoritative position on something, one is "begging the question." Who cares that it is said in the bible? Tell me why you think it applies here without inserting more dogma.
-Or who cares that it is the "right thing to do?" Give me the reasons.

The conclusion can not be one of the premises.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Uhhmmm...."Because God/the Bible says so" is a textbook example of begging the question. WTH are you talking about?

[Uprising]

If anyone (conservative, liberal, or otherwise) attempts to legislate by saying "this is the way it should be because my god says so" it would be met with equal scorn by me. That method accepts no responsibility for it's claims, thus cowardice. It requires no other thought or reasoning, thus lazy. It is no different and no better than the reasoning behind any other theocracy.

Arriving at a particular moral code without a god is not the same as having one forced on you by a god.

You're just describing "begging the question" - a favorite logical fallacy of the left and the CiC in particular. Hell, even the fracking title of this thread (....using the word "evolve") begs the question.

No, I'm not. I'm responding to exactly that. When invoking an authoritative position on something, one is "begging the question." Who cares that it is said in the bible? Tell me why you think it applies here without inserting more dogma.
-Or who cares that it is the "right thing to do?" Give me the reasons.

The conclusion can not be one of the premises.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Uhhmmm...."Because God/the Bible says so" is a textbook example of begging the question. WTH are you talking about?

I thought you were saying that I was guilty of "begging the question" here. Now that I read it again, that was not the case.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[80Dinosaur]

Many false prophets will come in My name, preaching what the itching ears of the people long to hear. The Word of God cannot evolve because God is perfectly righteous. He did not make us to sin in any way. We are saved when we accept Christ and what he did for us on the cross by not only dying, but taking on ALL SIN from the beginning to the end of man's existence, thus separating Himself from his Father for the first and only time in ALL eternity (My God, My God, Why hast though forsaken Me?) Imagine the horrible emptiness He felt for your sake and mine. We have no right to condemn any person, but we have every obligation to condemn all sin whether ours or someone else's. Love is never affirming anyone in his sin, but always in pointing him to Christ through the reading and study of God's Word.

[Hokie CPA]

Holy crap! A two-year old thread has been resurrected!

[Major Kong]

Holy crap! A two-year old thread has been resurrected!

It has risen

[houtexhokie]

There is no "The Bible" and no the "Christianity"

There are only millions of interpretations of each.

The problem arises when religious fundies arise to proclaim only THEY hold
the keys to the gateway to Heaven. Whatever THAT means.

Yours was a very nice post. Provocative. Thought provoking. And educational.

Bring more!

HT

[WestEndHokie39]

There is no "The Bible" and no the "Christianity".

If that is true, then neither has any meaning. Certainly there can be discussion around the "edges" of the faith, but certain concepts such as the resurrection of Christ and the need to be born again are not negotiable.

[WestEndHokie39]

I have no problem with anyone attempting to legislate their positions. I do expect them to be able to provide reasons other than by invoking their god's will.

I always find comments like this interesting. I'm a libertarian, so I always look for evidence of positions I support, whether they be spiritual or secular. I also advocate increasing liberty and freedom.

I find Christianity very logical and challenging. I don't pretend to know the mind of God, nor can I explain everything. Then again, I don't understand everything about every topic that interests me.

However, I don't base my economic or legislative positions on the Bible- that is not the purpose of the book. Those are based on what will cause the most people to be happy and prosperous with the most liberty. I find just about all of current progressive "thought" to be foolish articles of faith that have been proven wrong that are going to be imposed through legislation backed up by a government with guns.

[HokieHam]

There is no "The Bible" and no the "Christianity"

There are only millions of interpretations of each.

The problem arises when religious fundies arise to proclaim only THEY hold
the keys to the gateway to Heaven. Whatever THAT means.

Yours was a very nice post. Provocative. Thought provoking. And educational.

Bring more!

HT

You say you go to church.....Pharisee much?