Agree. There were arguments regarding keeping, or not keeping, God's Law in the New Testament.
I love it when people make assertions about how we must interpret that was written piecemeal by people living roughly 2000-3000 years ago in languages that are not regularly spoken today and translated to archaic versions of contemporarily used languages several hundred years ago and more than 1000-2000 years after those original writings were made. And then argue that older “contemporary” interpretations are the most accurate when current scholars likely have more access to the context surrounding those ancient writings than ever before; or at least since the era they were originally written.
And how do you know that the previous interpretations were not entirely caused by societal pressures?
There have been arguments about far more than "keeping, or not keeping, God's Law in the New Testament" (which, by the way, for many conservatives only seems to apply to what the Old Testament supposedly says about homosexuality, and not the many others things they obviously don't believe we should abide by). The Bible and its meaning have been nitpicked and debated to pieces in the last two millennia over issues both large and small. And the "societal pressures" of the day have always contributed to those debates. One great example would be the early church debates over "icons" and what the Bible said about them, which often rose and fell depending more on Roman military fortunes than anything else (because Christians of that era believed such things to be clear and legitimate expressions of whether the current rulers, and their religious philosophy, had God's favor). Another would be the use of biblical interpretation, by people in the US and elsewhere, to defend and justify slavery and racism.
He doesn't. He is just trying to not sound like a bigot and beside his way through it
Agree. That was just an example that came to mind.
Agree, but I also think there are things that are stated more or less clearly and are, therefore, more and less debatable. Reinterpretations of some topics require more "work", aka mental gymnastics, to get to the conclusion that society is looking for. For example, it's much easier to come to the conclusion that Christians should only worship one god than it is to conclude, based on the Bible, that slavery is wrong. I think the recent initiative to retrofit homosexuality into Christianity is one of the topics where lots of creative interpretation is being utilized, which is why I said he (NBA player) was right that, Biblically speaking, homosexuality isn't righteous.
Agree.
Agree.
So would your reaction also be that "the NBA player was right" if he had said that divorce or remarriage is "unrighteous"? That premarital sex is "unrighteous"? That women serving in positions of ministry is "unrighteous"? That eating pork is "unrighteous"? That eating shellfish is "unrighteous"?
I'm only talking about homosexuality right now. A deeper Bible discussion would probably require its own thread.
Yes. My belief that "one god" is less debatable comes from the fact that the first four on God's Top 10 List (Commandments) are all related to himself and that he is the only true god. The fact that Christians made 3 separate entities into one entity, to me, shows how clearly it is believed that there should be only one god. I also don't foresee that changing because there will likely never be societal pressure to do so.
Yeah, that's why I said "only worship one god" in post #67.
Bullshit. You're talking about the "one true God." At the very least, you lack the requisite background knowledge to make the proper distinctions.Yeah, that's why I said "only worship one god" in post #67.
"For example, it's much easier to come to the conclusion that Christians should only worship one god than it is to conclude, based on the Bible, that slavery is wrong."
The fact that it took hundreds of years and multiple church schisms to get to that formulation would certainly not suggest that it was clear to the early Christians.
Agree, there was also much debate on which writings should/shouldn't be in the Bible but, in the end, it seems pretty clear that the Bible, and it's interpretation, is fairly unambiguous regarding the fact that there is one true god for Jews/Christians to worship.
Such an astute observation man. You’re so smart.
I disagree with your assertion, but it's favorite tv series ever.
Want to guess in what year the word “homosexual” appeared in a version of the Bible?