The wall of Christian stereotype

Post Reply New Topic

I also go by what the Bible says not what Christians say, but I don't take every single passage literally. If I did I would have to believe that I should both "turn the other cheek" and take "an eye for an eye," that I should not work on the sabbath and that I should do good work on the sabbath, that I should ritually wash my hands before I eat and that I shouldn't care if my hands are washed, that men should be circumcised and that they don't need to be circumcised, that I should not eat unclean animals and that all animals are available to eat, that salvation is not available to me as a Gentile and that it is available to me as a Gentile, all at the same time.

I don't take it all literally either, if "literally" means that all the stories told actually happened and could not be stories told to make a point. However, I agree with JonnyBGood; all of the paradoxs you mentioned are cases of the New Covenant supercseding the old. Jesus told a parable about pouring new wine into old wineskins or patching old garments with new cloth. If you try to mix the new with the old, you will end up with nothing.

Do they categorically ignore the anti-homosexual passage? How could they, realistically - what is their reasoning?

How do you knowing they are sinning? They could just be openly gay but celibate. In which case they're not actually doing anything.

The only beliefs that tie all Christians together is that we believe against all odds that Christ was God, died to save us, came back to life, went back to his own plane of existence, and will come back someday to fix all this. Other than that there is sometimes not much we have in common. Whatever else Christians might "cherry pick" out of the Bible, this is the only one that actually makes one a Christian. There will be debate about the moral codes of the Bible until there are either no more people or no more Christians.

You are going to have them that. I have never understood why some christian denominations call their clergyman father when Jesus said "call no man father upon the earth". I am sure they have an explanation for that, but I don't know what it is.

Sorry if I am not saying anything good and useful in this post,
but this thinking sounds very sad actually.

Hopefully in 50-100 years from now, the Catholic Church, if everything goes good (if religion still exists) will change their views about this, then other religions will follow.

I see Ragtime that you and perhaps other christians that believe in that, are very well intentioned, but .....

okie dokie

You have to remember that Jesus and the apostles altered what was kept under the "Old Law." Jesus spoke against "an eye for an eye" when he spoke of turning the other cheek. (Though I could expand on this subject quite a bit - it really has nothing to say regarding self-defense, for instance, and nothing to say toward community relations, only personal conduct...) When Jesus and the apostles gleaned wheat on the Sabbath and when he healed on the Sabbath, he put aside the strict Sabbath rules and regulations. And Peter's vision before meeting Cornelius both abrogated the further need for the distinction of "unclean animals" and at the same time opened salvation to the Gentiles. So for you to say you have to believe both, is nonsense. Either that, or you simply do not know your Bible. Or don't believe it.

Yes, Jesus did indeed go around talking to women on a regular basis, and Samaritans and Gentiles. And he was critical of legalists. But on the other hand, he still was very insistent on people keeping from sin. And rather than narrow the definition of what sin was, he expanded on it largely, in the Sermon on the Mount and other places. (Showing us our abject lostness and need for a Savior.)

When he stood between the mob and the adulteress, he told them that they had no right to condemn her, as they were all equally condemned. But he neither condoned the mob's sin nor hers, and he certainly didn't give a knowing wink. For even as he turned and softly spoke to her, he still required that she go and "sin no more."

I don't take it all literally either, if "literally" means that all the stories told actually happened and could not be stories told to make a point. However, I agree with JonnyBGood; all of the paradoxs you mentioned are cases of the New Covenant supercseding the old. Jesus told a parable about pouring new wine into old wineskins or patching old garments with new cloth. If you try to mix the new with the old, you will end up with nothing.

Okay, Ragtime, if you aren't implying that because I don't take the Bible literally, which I don't think anyone can do because of the aforementioned paradoxes that would then occur, then I am not a Christian in your sense of the word, I don't know what you're saying!

I can't judge anyone's salvation. I'm sorry if my beliefs brush by yours, but they're not made of politically-correct rubber. I can't simply bend them to make someone else temporarily comfortable. The truth is analogous to a solid rock, and as Jesus said, you will either fall on it and be broken (repent and be Saved), or it will fall on you and grind you to powder (judgment for your works -- i.e. not the way you wanna go). Matt 21:44

In the same breath you say that you can't judge anyone's salvation, but continue to imply that you do judge mine. Also, you imply that I'm made of politically correct rubber because of my beliefs on one issue when you know nothing more about my political beliefs. If that isn't stereotyping, I don't know what is. Also, I feel that you assume that because I don't take every word of the Bible literally that means I don't know what it says. I guarantee that I do know what the Bible says. I just think it is rude to quote texts at people as if they are mine to throw at whomever I'd like.

Who is the first person you think of when you hear the word "Christian"?