Pro-gay marriage "Bible alone" Christians: explanation?

[Traverse]

And that is your religious right to believe that…we believe we are led to follow Him as well…“God still speaks”, for us to not stand and speak for those who’s voice is so often marginalized and ignored puts us at odds with what we accept as the “word of the Lord”…but we must follow our fully formed conscience and Spirit led convictions…and let God be Judge.

I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, I’m trying to understand. Are you saying this gives you cause to ignore scripture? Because it’s pretty plain in scripture. You don’t need the catechism to see this issue. From my understanding it is very clear.

 

[Publisher]

I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, I’m trying to understand. Are you saying this gives you cause to ignore scripture? Because it’s pretty plain in scripture. You don’t need the catechism to see this issue. From my understanding it is very clear.

Which scriptures do I ignore? By “ignore” do you mean not agree with you? I don’t “ignore” scripture…but I do disagree with your understanding…big difference…at least in my poor estimation.

For some of us the issue is not “plain”. We feel the “plain” passages produce more questions than “plainess” of answer…from my undestanding it is not clear at all…and that is the whole issue.

 

[Traverse]

Well, there’s not much opinion wiggle room with what the bible teaches on this. So I’m confused that you could not understand the scripture in the same way.

I mean, do you not agree that marriage is between a man and a woman despite the fact that those are God’s own words?

 

[exnihilo]

Just because a faith tradition from it’s inception had a primitive understanding of human sexuality does not mean their belief on the matter is “proof”

I’m not sure how much understanding has increased since ancient times. From my study of ancient history it seems these people were well acquainted with the human desire to have sex with anything and everything. The sex drive has not changed at all. In fact since many folks that embrace this kind of understanding are evolutionists it is hard to comprehend how this can be a claim. Since man has supposedly not evolved since he became man nothing is different about his nature since the time of the first man. Understanding here simply means social acceptance of acts and relationships. That has changed over time to be sure. But that has nothing to do with a different understanding of our sexual urges which are the same as they were. The difference here is understanding of morality which is not a realm of science or history.

the ancient understanding of science and biology lacked much…the “seed” of the man was implanted in a woman and grew a child…with no understanding whatsoever that the woman contributed 50% of the genetic matter to form a child…much of our scientific understanding has changed…grown…yet we wish to keep human sexuality imprisioned within pages of a book that believed mental illness was caused by spirits and demons

Yes, scientifically the ancients did lack some knowledge. Then again they generally knew far more than moderns give them credit for. We do know more and yet the same people who have such a liberating approach to sex seem to deny the science of reproduction. These same people have no problem with abortion even though we know, scientifically, that we are killing a human with different genetic material from the mother.

As for what causes mental illness moderns dont know that. We can identify physical conditions that are associated with behavior. We can often give drugs which change behavior. But as for what really causes these things that is at least not always clear. And if we go too far and make us not creatures with a will but robots responding to chemicals then the whole discussion is pointless.

 

[Publisher]

Well, there’s not much opinion wiggle room with what the bible teaches on this. So I’m confused that you could not understand the scripture in the same way.

I mean, do you not agree that marriage is between a man and a woman despite the fact that those are God’s own words?

Again…it’s not black and white to me…I understand your confusion…we don’t see those passages in the same way…historical, cultural, textual context means much to me in understanding “the words of God” as recorded by other fallible humans…God’s word is found in scripture…the words written on a page are not “God’s word”.

When the prophets wrote “the word of the Lord came to me saying…” I seriously doubt that inner Voice spoke those precise words…he wrote what he understood and experienced as “God’s word”…I understand your confusion…finding God’s will and understanding His word is difficult to be sure…perhaps part of “fear and trembling” carries with it a level of uncertainty in some ways.

 

[Traverse]

Okay, I understand where you’re coming from now. I don’t understand why you’d consider yourself Christian if you didn’t think God could present His word in an accurate manner that is not corrupted by man, but since you do I can see why you’d dispute something that is plain to me.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Publisher]

Okay, I understand where you’re coming from now. I don’t understand why you’d consider yourself Christian if you didn’t think God could present His word in an accurate manner that is not corrupted by man, but since you do I can see why you’d dispute something that is plain to me.

Thanks for the explanation.

I’m not sure how believing in your understanding of scritpure makes one a “Christian”…I thought faith in the work of God in Christ and being baptized into His Body by the work of the Holy Spirit made one a Christian…didn’t know one had to believe in your understanding of scripture…where exactly is that scriptural reference?

 

[Traverse]

But you said yourself it’s not my understanding of scripture, it’s your acceptance of scripture. I believe the bible to be inerrant. You do not.

Since you do not, I don’t understand why you’d trust in baptism or Christ when the knowledge we derive from those is found in the bible, a book you do not fully trust. Do you see my point?

 

[Publisher]

But you said yourself it’s not my understanding of scripture, it’s your acceptance of scripture. I believe the bible to be inerrant. You do not.

Since you do not, I don’t understand why you’d trust in baptism or Christ when the knowledge we derive from those is found in the bible, a book you do not fully trust. Do you see my point?

I don’t trust in water baptism…I trust in Christ and by experience of His Presence and forgiveness of sins and the cleansing work of the Holy Spirit in my life is where my trust lies…not in the words of a book…but in my experience with the Living Christ…and my experience with Him are attested to in scripture as scripture recored the experiences others have had with God…an inerrant book is not where I place my trust…but in a Living God and Risen Christ…

 

[Traverse]

If deciding ‘I’m a christian now’ was the only real basis for actually being saved, and all the rest was just cultural law and mistranslations, why would Jesus make a point to say 'Some will come to me, saying ‘Master, Master’ and I will say ‘I do not know you?’

You trust God, from words in a book that you don’t trust. I just don’t get it. I know I’m not going to change your mind and I’m not telling you to abandon belief in God just because I think how you went about it doesn’t make sense. I would, however, like for you to understand where I’m coming from and see why I don’t think it makes sense.

What do you use to discern what parts of the bible are to be believed and what are to be dismissed?

 

[Publisher]

If deciding ‘I’m a christian now’ was the only real basis for actually being saved, and all the rest was just cultural law and mistranslations, why would Jesus make a point to say 'Some will come to me, saying ‘Master, Master’ and I will say ‘I do not know you?’

You trust God, from words in a book that you don’t trust. I just don’t get it. I know I’m not going to change your mind and I’m not telling you to abandon belief in God just because I think how you went about it doesn’t make sense. I would, however, like for you to understand where I’m coming from and see why I don’t think it makes sense.

What do you use to discern what parts of the bible are to be believed and what are to be dismissed?

You mischaracterize my beliefs friend…I wrote that I accept the scritpures as records of experiences others had of God and through my experience with this same God, I have found faith in Christ…“Lord I beleive, help my unbelief”…I trust in the grace and mercy of God in Christ…“My hope is in the Lord”.

I do not believe the Bible to be inerrant…what we have is a translation of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies with as many variations between those copies as there are words in the book itself…some are minor…some are major…but one “difference” between a copy and another copy would not make an English translation “inerrant”…and since we have no originals…just copies of copies of copies of copies…the words with all their variations just don’t seem to me to be inerrant(without error)…now…I would grant to you perhaps the originals are inerrant and without error…but we don’t have originals…so no, I do not believe we have an inerrant Bible.

Tell me…which “inerrant” English translation do you use?

I favor the RSV…not inerrant…but all in all a good translation…I don’t know of an “inerrant” version however…do you?

Perhaps we should begin a thread on “inerrancy” of scripture and which translations are inerrant so as not to derail this thread…how about you start one…I’m sure it would be lively and interesting.

 

[Traverse]

I would like to point out that you did not answer my question. You restated your beliefs on the bible, which I already knew. You do not believe it is inerrant. That’s fine. You did not, however, explain to me how you discern what is worth believing in the bible and what is worth dismissing.

Historians have said much about the accuracy of the new testament and how it has not changed in two thousand years. Yes, we only have copies, but these are SUPER EARLY COPIES and the fact that the word has not changed at all for two thousand years should be nothing short of amazing. These are not copies of copies of copies. That statement implies change ala the telephone game, which has not taken place.

Dr. Ravi Zacharias,at Oxford University, said, “In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the documents, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity.”

But I also know that you believe there is a possibility the originals would not be inerrant either, as these are men sharing their experiences with God, as opposed to the Holy Spirit guiding these men to record His word. And that’s your opinion, okay.

I just think that if God can create the universe then He can protect one book. And the fact that He left us a book says a lot about His nature. Why leave us anything if it’s going to be trampled on by men?

Oop, I see your suggestion of a new thread. That might be a good idea. I’ll leave this here, though, as its in direct response to you and not suitable for an opening post in a new thread.

 

[Publisher]

I would like to point out that you did not answer my question. You restated your beliefs on the bible, which I already knew. You do not believe it is inerrant. That’s fine. You did not, however, explain to me how you discern what is worth believing in the bible and what is worth dismissing.

Historians have said much about the accuracy of the new testament and how it has not changed in two thousand years. Yes, we only have copies, but these are SUPER EARLY COPIES and the fact that the word has not changed at all for two thousand years should be nothing short of amazing. These are not copies of copies of copies. That statement implies change ala the telephone game, which has not taken place.

Dr. Ravi Zacharias,at Oxford University, said, “In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the documents, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity.”

But I also know that you believe there is a possibility the originals would not be inerrant either, as these are men sharing their experiences with God, as opposed to the Holy Spirit guiding these men to record His word. And that’s your opinion, okay.

I just think that if God can create the universe then He can protect one book. And the fact that He left us a book says a lot about His nature. Why leave us anything if it’s going to be trampled on by men?

Oop, I see your suggestion of a new thread. That might be a good idea. I’ll leave this here, though, as its in direct response to you and not suitable for an opening post in a new thread.

Reason, prayer, scholarly understanding assists. There is no inerrant copy of scripture. He did create the universe…but did not protect one book…there are variations upon variations between manuscripts…“inerrancy” means “without error”…we have no copy without error…we can compare and get an idea of what it may be on those variants…but they still are variants and one of those copies is wrong…both can’t be correct and inerrant when they disagree with each other…and there are no originals to compare to see what actually was written…perhaps you and I have different ideas as to what “inerrant/without error” means…I understand it to be that no error in translation would exist when compared to the originals…we don’t have the originals…just copies with more variants in the text than there are words in the New Testament…doesn’t seem to be “inerrant/without error” to me…maybe I have too narrow a view of “without error”.

 

[exnihilo]

You trust God, from words in a book that you don’t trust. I just don’t get it… What do you use to discern what parts of the bible are to be believed and what are to be dismissed?

That seems to me to be a big problem in Mainline Protestantism. The Bible is not really reliable and yet it is supposed to be our only source of faith. As I said what has ended up happening is interpreting Scripture through modern sentiments. I think this explains the collapse of Mainline Protestantism. There is really no need to believe or go to church where you’ll be taught that the Bible is not really relevant except where it squares with modern sensibilities. I think the children of Mainline Protestantism have taken the teachings seriously. I should add that this is not exclusive to Mainline Protestantism. But it is very prevelant there.

I do not believe the Bible to be inerrant…what we have is a translation of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies with as many variations between those copies as there are words in the book itself…some are minor…some are major…but one “difference” between a copy and another copy would not make an English translation “inerrant”…and since we have no originals…just copies of copies of copies of copies…the words with all their variations just don’t seem to me to be inerrant(without error)…now…I would grant to you perhaps the originals are inerrant and without error…but we don’t have originals…so no, I do not believe we have an inerrant Bible.

I favor the RSV…not inerrant…but all in all a good translation

I agree we have to be careful not to get sidetracked. So I hope I dont contribute to that in replying here. I would say we have to be specific in what we mean by inerrant. I agree copies of copies is a problem that must be addressed. But I would question how you or I could know whether we have a ‘good translation’? In order to know a translation is good we have to know the original content and the meaning. If the only source of the content and the meaning is the original document itself then you or I would have no way of declaring what is a good translation because neither of us knows the true meaning unless we are inspired ourselves. The key is knowledge of truth precedes ability to judge the worthiness of a translation.

Since I do not claim personal inspiration I must rely on some other source for knowledge of the truth revealed in Scripture. I must rely on some outside authority. If we make judging Scripture a matter of experience then it is necessarily errant because any one man’s experience is limited. If we make judging Scripture a matter of collective experience then it is errant because the collection is still limited in experience at least in regard to history and time.

 

[Publisher]

That seems to me to be a big problem in Mainline Protestantism. The Bible is not really reliable and yet it is supposed to be our only source of faith. As I said what has ended up happening is interpreting Scripture through modern sentiments. I think this explains the collapse of Mainline Protestantism. There is really no need to believe or go to church where you’ll be taught that the Bible is not really relevant except where it squares with modern sensibilities. I think the children of Mainline Protestantism have taken the teachings seriously. I should add that this is not exclusive to Mainline Protestantism. But it is very prevelant there.

I agree we have to be careful not to get sidetracked. So I hope I dont contribute to that in replying here. I would say we have to be specific in what we mean by inerrant. I agree copies of copies is a problem that must be addressed. But I would question how you or I could know whether we have a ‘good translation’? In order to know a translation is good we have to know the original content and the meaning. If the only source of the content and the meaning is the original document itself then you or I would have no way of declaring what is a good translation because neither of us knows the true meaning unless we are inspired ourselves. The key is knowledge of truth precedes ability to judge the worthiness of a translation.

Since I do not claim personal inspiration I must rely on some other source for knowledge of the truth revealed in Scripture. I must rely on some outside authority. If we make judging Scripture a matter of experience then it is necessarily errant because any one man’s experience is limited. If we make judging Scripture a matter of collective experience then it is errant because the collection is still limited in experience at least in regard to history and time.

The “Wesleyan quadrilateral” reflects the Episcopalian and Methodist understanding as I understand…not “Bible alone”

Scripture – the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Tradition – the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason – rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience – a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Christ

 

[BellsMom]

You do not believe it is inerrant. That’s fine. You did not, however, explain to me how you discern what is worth believing in the bible and what is worth dismissing.

I hope Publisher doesn’t mind me jumping in here but this caught my eye because it is very similar to another thread I read here.

Publishers response really spoke to me. I actually wrote it down, lol. He said this:

"Perhaps my answer to your question…“which are not myth”…any story or passage which allows for the marginalization of a group of people and allows violence to be done to them and any story which does not speak to the dignity of the human condition and inspires us to “love as we are loved”…is myth.

The myths told thorughout scripture…those stories which call for the “righteous” to respond in violence and brutality to “unbelievers” is myth…not too much different than the Gods and Goddesses of other “faiths” of the time."

It comes from this thread here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=532750

 

[pageois]

…and where we differ, we will place ourselves in the Hands of a Judge who is Just and Ture…

And I suspect that Judge will smile on you and say, 'You pretty well got that one right, child. Enter my house."

 

[Zundrah]

'm just wondering why any “christian” who bases their whole religion on the Bible can agree with it.

Same reason there are protestants and Catholics.

Protestant; “This verse meas that.”

Catholic; “Actually I’ll have you know it in fact means this.”

The answer is; Interpretation.

 

[John7]

Where Romans 1:21-31 speaks of natural/unnatural, what is natural or unnatural for the person depends on the person. For instance what would be unnatural for a homosexual, would be to engage in marriage with a heterosexual.

nice try,

it doesn’t say
“Men leaving the natural use.”
but
“men leaving the natural use of the WOMAN.” > leaving heterosexual

ie,
men taking the natural use of another man > homosexual
and burning in lust one to another. that is, > homosexual
man burning in lust toward another man > homosexual

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working
that which is shameful, and receiving in themselves that recompence of
their error which was meet.