If homosexuality is so sinful, why isn't its prohibition one of the 10 Commandments?

[Age_Quod_Agis]

I’m still trying to digest the myriad responses I’ve received, many of which are very good, but I’ll try and post some thoughts here in response to cosmosdan’s thoughtful post.

@cosmosdan

As you said, others have come forward with other books and messages they claim are from God. How are we to tell which is real or which is bogus? Book of Mormon? Koran? The Course in Miracles? Others.

The same way we decide which religions are real and which are bogus; which loves are real and which are bogus; etc. It’s a mix of both the head and the heart. There’s no way that we can know which religions are real in the same way that we know 2+2=4. But if you’re looking for scientific certainty, then I’d humbly suggest that for most people, religion is not a matter of scientific certainty.

You seem to be saying that it was God’s intention that it refer to the entire NT. Do you have any kind of scriptural reference for this assumption? We know the books and letters were written decades apart. We also know there was not total agreement about which books should be included. So why is it logical to assume that it was God’s plan and intention that we have these particular books as a be all end all?

My original statement was in response to a post saying that the writings of Aquinas were equivalent to the Bible in terms of Christian dogma. I think I have admitted that there are plenty of sources through which people can learn about God’s will, and that there’s plenty of valid disagreement on what constitutes God’s will (See, e.g., Post #23).

Although I think my statement made sense in context – a point which Happy Clam seemed to understand and with which he/she seemed to agree – it certainly could have been misinterpreted by people coming into the discussion later. I apologize for that. It was apparently a bit of muddled writing on my part.

It’s also safe to say that they are heavily influnenced by Christian tradition and what theiur particular denomination accepts. It’s also true that may accept what they are told by those in authority positions. In discussions I’ve had I often hear, our pastor says, or, my study guide says, or my friend who’s studied the Bible for years, says etc. That IMHO means people are defering to someone elses opinion instead of truly forming their own.

Can’t say I agree with you here. I haven’t personally done any studies on the economic effects of different tax rates, but based on books, classes, discussions, etc., I certainly have an opinion on when taxes are too high. That doesn’t mean I’m deferring to other people on the issue of taxes. It just means I’m using a variety of sources of information in making up my own mind.

Our knowledge of where the Bible came from is much more advanced than it was 500 years ago. The evidence indicates that the books in the Bible were changed many times as they passed through scribe after scribe. Even if we accept that the original authors were inspired by God we don’t know what the original words were. That’s not a theory. It’s fact. Making the Bible the be all and end all in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is not an honest pursuit of truth IMO.
It also assumes something is God’s plan that we have no evidence for. As far as I can tell, that assumption about the Bible was contrived by man and is one of the “traditions of men” that you mentioned earlier.

These are all fair points. I would only add a couple of points.

First, the fact that we don’t know all the words doesn’t mean that the Bible (or, I suppose, any religious text) should be totally disregarded as a means of deciphering God’s will. If anything, our greater understanding of the Bible – including the flaws in its translation and interpretation – would seem to be reveal God’s will, rather than hide it.

(I’ve also heard it argued that God is omnipotent, and therefore had both knowledge and control over the mistranslations and misinterpretations. I find this argument philisophically neat, but unconvincing. If God wanted the text changed, then why didn’t He just make the original text say what He wanted it to? And why is He now revealing that the original text was wrong?)

Second, I don’t see why traditions or teachings are more reliable sources of information. If we can have mistranslations of text, then surely we can agree that oral teachings and traditions are subject to changes and flaws, too.

So essentially, we’re talking about the fact that we can’t be absolutely sure what God’s will is. And I agree with that point.

To understand the scriptures it’s good to know something about the cultural background they were written in and how the attitudes of the day and authors are reflected in them. The “teachings” as you put it come from our own mind as we study and seek to understand. That’s why there is so much variance in beliefs. People don’t have the same experiences or interpretations.

Absolutely. And I think I was pretty clear that there are some pretty strong differences of opinion on these matters. And I didn’t mean to imply that my interpretation was any greater or lesser than anyone else’s.

Do you have any evidence other than religious tradition that it was meant to be the be all end all?

Well, if we define the Bible itself as religious tradition, then no, I don’t. But if we define the Bible as religious tradition, then doesn’t “religious tradition” suddenly include pretty much every kind of evidence there is? What other evidence is there besides religious tradition, religious writings, and being told somethig directly by God (and I don’t believe God has ever spoken to me)? Am I missing something?

[clairobscur]

@Happy Clam

Some people think Jesus was saying that all of the laws in the Old Testament still apply. (Note – I don’t agree with this interpretation.)

This interpretation is quite straightforward :

@Matthew

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

It’s quite difficult to overlook this verse, or to “interpret it away” IMO, but still it’s ignored by all christian churches.

[Polycarp]

@clairobscur

This interpretation is quite straightforward :

It’s quite difficult to overlook this verse, or to “interpret it away” IMO, but still it’s ignored by all christian churches.

Ah, but remember that in the rabbinic tradition, the Law is for the benefit of the People, and to be construed not legalistically but in the manner best suited to a beneficient God acting to protect His People.

And that, further, Jesus took an extremely humanistic approach to the Law compared to any of the schools of Torah interpretation of the time. For Him, the Law was fulfilled in the Two Great Commandments and the Golden Rule. Again and again, His examples focus on merciful, altruistic, generous behavior toward others, and not on the keeping of the letter of the Law at the expense of the Spirit. (“The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. And the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”)

To draw a parallel with modern usage, when Bricker or Hamlet are arguing law, what they mean by “law” is a unitary Gestalt comprised of constitutions, statutes, regulations, case decisions, precedents, the common law, and Lawrence Tribe knows what else. When a layman speaks of “the law.” generally what he’s talking about is the statutes. “It’s not the business of the courts to make law; it’s the legislature’s job” flies in the face of the entire idea of law as it is known and practiced by actual lawyers.

Likewise, what Jesus and Paul mean by “the Law” is not “a code of 613 commandments extracted from the Torah plus Mishnaic and Talmudic interpretations placed thereupon” but “that body of discipline by which God tells man how to live a life pleasing to Him.” This is foreign to most non-Jewish modern understanding of the term.

[cosmosdan]

@Age Quod Agis

.The same way we decide which religions are real and which are bogus; which loves are real and which are bogus; etc. It’s a mix of both the head and the heart. There’s no way that we can know which religions are real in the same way that we know 2+2=4. But if you’re looking for scientific certainty, then I’d humbly suggest that for most people, religion is not a matter of scientific certainty.

If you’re saying that different religious and spiritual paths are equally valid, {as well as choosing no spiritual path}then we agree. I’m not looking for scientific certainty by any means. I think those that see the Bible as the only legitimate source of spiritual guidance are “creating” a certainty that is bogus.

My original statement was in response to a post saying that the writings of Aquinas were equivalent to the Bible in terms of Christian dogma. I think I have admitted that there are plenty of sources through which people can learn about God’s will, and that there’s plenty of valid disagreement on what constitutes God’s will (See, e.g., Post #23)Although I think my statement made sense in context – a point which Happy Clam seemed to understand and with which he/she seemed to agree – it certainly could have been misinterpreted by people coming into the discussion later. I apologize for that. It was apparently a bit of muddled writing on my part…

Excuse me but it seems like you didn’t answer my questions. You said the Bible* is* the be all end all to Christianity. When ** DtC**said the passage in Revelation referred* only* to the book of Revelation you objected and asked for a cite, which you have been given. Do you still maintain that said verse refers to the entire Bible or not? If so I asked you for any reference other than religious tradition that this is so. Do you have any?I’d appreciate a direct answer.

Can’t say I agree with you here. I haven’t personally done any studies on the economic effects of different tax rates, but based on books, classes, discussions, etc., I certainly have an opinion on when taxes are too high. That doesn’t mean I’m deferring to other people on the issue of taxes. It just means I’m using a variety of sources of information in making up my own mind.

To get a true variety of sources you must give equal consideration to well articulated reasonable differences of opinions. You must consider the available evidence from various sources, even those who don’t agree with popular opinion. I realize some Christians do exactly that. I also know that many only give weight to Christian experts and those who agree with there predisposed conclusion. That’s not examining the available evidence IMO. When some Christian author dismisses certain arguments and others take his word for it rather than look at it themselves, that’s a form of blinders. One thing I’ve learned from SDMB, is that if you really want to challenge and examine your beliefs then have conversations with intelligent informed articulate people who completely disagree with you. It’s great.

These are all fair points. I would only add a couple of points.

First, the fact that we don’t know all the words doesn’t mean that the Bible (or, I suppose, any religious text) should be totally disregarded as a means of deciphering God’s will. If anything, our greater understanding of the Bible – including the flaws in its translation and interpretation – would seem to be reveal God’s will, rather than hide it.

I never implied that the facts about the inaccuracy of the Bible means that it should be completely disregarded. That’s seems to be the conclusion of those who consider it inerrant. Either it’s inerrant or it’s useless. Neither extreme is true. The true source of spiritual knowledge is the living spirit within us, that is our unalterable connection to God and each other. It is that living spirit that allows us to discern the spiritual truth from the tradition and myth from the Bible, with all it’s imperfections, and from any other source as well. Our understanding of the Bible’s flaws and it’s history of interpretation and translation gives us a more realistic platform from which to judge what God’s will might be for us. It’s means we don’t rely on any book as the be all end all. We also don’t have to dismiss anything simply because it’s not held by tradition.

(I’ve also heard it argued that God is omnipotent, and therefore had both knowledge and control over the mistranslations and misinterpretations. I find this argument philosophically neat, but unconvincing. If God wanted the text changed, then why didn’t He just make the original text say what He wanted it to? And why is He now revealing that the original text was wrong?)

This argument also assumes the thing most in doubt, that is that it was God’s plan that we have some authoritative compilation of material to guide us. I think that is assumed only to support a man made tradition.

Second, I don’t see why traditions or teachings are more reliable sources of information. If we can have mistranslations of text, then surely we can agree that oral teachings and traditions are subject to changes and flaws, too.

I certainly don’t think alternative teachings or traditions are more reliable just on the basis they are alternatives. My suggestion is exploring and giving equal consideration to the alternatives. To perhaps see that God has indeed communicated with people other the tribes of Israel and their attempts to express this communication are just as valid as the Bible. Each is man’s very imperfect attempt to express his relationship with God. From that we do as you suggest and use our own hearts and minds to decide which path is right for us as individuals.

So essentially, we’re talking about the fact that we can’t be absolutely sure what God’s will is. And I agree with that point. Absolutely. And I think I was pretty clear that there are some pretty strong differences of opinion on these matters. And I didn’t mean to imply that my interpretation was any greater or lesser than anyone else’s.

On this we agree. We choose our own path and it is not for us to declare our path the correct one for someone else. We can share our insights and experiences but then we must honor the others right to choose.

Well, if we define the Bible itself as religious tradition, then no, I don’t. But if we define the Bible as religious tradition, then doesn’t “religious tradition” suddenly include pretty much every kind of evidence there is? What other evidence is there besides religious tradition, religious writings, and being told something directly by God (and I don’t believe God has ever spoken to me)? Am I missing something?

Of course the Bible is a major part of religious tradition, and is itself a religious tradition. Within that tradition there are many ways of viewing the Bible from a book written by men , to written by men who were inspired by God to, the inerrant word of God. We use the historical evidence we have to make our judgement call on which view is closest to the truth. The truth, after all is the goal. If we deny or skew the facts to defend and preserve tradition we do a disservice to our search for the truth{which will set us free}

No, religious tradition does not include every kind of evidence. The challenge is to discern tradition form truth. There’s nothing inherently wrong with religious tradition but there is a problem when people can’t or won’t acknowledge the difference, and start presenting tradition to others as truth.

[clairobscur]

@Polycarp

And that, further, Jesus took an extremely humanistic approach to the Law compared to any of the schools of Torah interpretation of the time. For Him, the Law was fulfilled in the Two Great Commandments and the Golden Rule. Again and again, His examples focus on merciful, altruistic, generous behavior toward others, and not on the keeping of the letter of the Law at the expense of the Spirit. (“The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. And the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”)

Putting emphasis on the spirit rather than on the letter, or even condemning people who follow strictly the letter and ignore the spirit is one thing. But it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t ideally respect both the spirit and the letter. Especially not when he states that not a single letter of the Law will ever change.

When Jesus states what his commandment is somewhere in John (loving each other) , he doesn’t say that this replace all other commandments.

When he’s asked what are the most important commandments, and answers, he doesn’t add “and the others don’t matter, really, don’t bother with them”.

When he states that his disciples, who happen to be hungry, can pick up corn on the sabbath (“the Sabbath was made for men, etc…”), he doesn’t make a new rule but mentions a biblical precedent (and aren’t Jews allowed to break the Law in case of need, anyway, like eating pork when thee’s nothing else available?). He never states “you can safely ignore the Sabbath”. He just says : “These Pharisees are over-zealous, necessity overule the Law, as shown by this biblical example”.

Likewise, what Jesus and Paul mean by “the Law” is not “a code of 613 commandments extracted from the Torah plus Mishnaic and Talmudic interpretations placed thereupon” but “that body of discipline by which God tells man how to live a life pleasing to Him.”

And what’s the difference? What is this “body of discipline” if not the Law in whole? What makes you think that Jesus, a Jew, adressing a Jewish audience, and mentionning the Law would refer to anything else than…well… the Law? If he expected these people completely accustomed to follow the Law to understand that they didn’t need to do so anymore, wouldn’t have he stated so in no uncertain terms? Instead of what, he says “the Law is eternal and unchanging”.

Again, how do you interpret Matthew 5:18? How can you reconcile such a straightforward statement with your idea of a “New Law” consisting mainly of a couple commandments and a general concept? That’s changing way more than a dot and an iota… I believe you’d need very strong , and equally straightforward, arguments to dismiss this verse. Not merely some vague reference like “if you’re really hungry on the Shabbat, you can pick up some corn”.

I contend that this Jewish prophet expected his Jewish disciples to follow the Jewish Law. Paul’s ideas on the issue, and the views of gentiles unfamiliar with the Jewish Law and not giving it much importance are another matter entirely. Note that, according to the reports of muslim scholars, it existed in Palestine for many centuries, a christian group that followed the Law, and condemned Paul as having betrayed the teachings of Jesus.
To sum up, I contend that the christian religion doesn’t follow the teachings of its supposed founder, but rather is an “ad hoc” religion made up by and for gentiles, more palatable, understandable, and appealing to them.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@clairobscur

@Happy Clam

Some people think Jesus was saying that all of the laws in the Old Testament still apply. (Note – I don’t agree with this interpretation.)

This interpretation is quite straightforward :

@Matthew

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

It’s quite difficult to overlook this verse, or to “interpret it away” IMO, but still it’s ignored by all christian churches.

I think you might have accidentally attributed my quote to Happy Clam. But I appreciate you coming in to give it a more accurate airing than my interpretation of your beliefs.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@cosmosdan

If you’re saying that different religious and spiritual paths are equally valid, {as well as choosing no spiritual path}then we agree. I’m not looking for scientific certainty by any means. I think those that see the Bible as the only legitimate source of spiritual guidance are “creating” a certainty that is bogus.

I’m not actually saying that all religious and spiritual paths are equally valid. I personally have my own beliefs, and I tend to take a dim view of some religious beliefs (Heaven’s Gate, for example). I suspect that we agree on this, since you seem to take a dim view of a spiritual path that includes a belief in Biblical inerrancy.

Excuse me but it seems like you didn’t answer my questions. You said the Bible* is* the be all end all to Christianity. When ** DtC**said the passage in Revelation referred* only* to the book of Revelation you objected and asked for a cite, which you have been given. Do you still maintain that said verse refers to the entire Bible or not? If so I asked you for any reference other than religious tradition that this is so. Do you have any?I’d appreciate a direct answer.

I didn’t directly answer your question because I challenged its premise. I phrased my response to Happy Clam poorly, which allowed it to be misunderstood when taken out of context.

My point was that according to the Bible, the thoughts of St. Thomas Aquinas weren’t supposed to be considered Christian dogma, and they certainly weren’t supposed to be considered on par with the word of God as revealed through the Bible. If I could rephrase what I wrote, I’d use “God’s word” instead of “the Bible.” But my focus wasn’t on the word “Bible;” it was on the word “dogma.”

I did ask DtC for a cite because I was curious about his explanation. He just said that the reference in Revelations only referred to the book of Revelations. I wanted to know why he thought that.

The reason I think that the reference to “this book” in Revelations need not be read solely to refer to the book of Revelations, but to the entire religious text, is because Revelations was written for the purpose of including it with the other religious texts that now make up our Bible. How do we know that? It seems a reasonable conclusion from the opening of Revelations:

@Rev. 1:1-3

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.

So Revelations says that it is divinely inspired, and 2nd Timothy 3:16 says:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness . . . .

So Revelations was described as a revelation of Jesus Christ, revealed to John, and which was supposed to be shown to all Christ’s servants. So this wasn’t intended to just be one guy’s musings on the subject of spirituality. Rather, by its own description, it fits the definition of Scripture.

So I’m not convinced by your argument, but I’m not sure how this point bears on the larger discussion anyways.

As for providing evidence other than religious tradition, see my response below.

@AQA

Well, if we define the Bible itself as religious tradition, then no, I don’t. But if we define the Bible as religious tradition, then doesn’t “religious tradition” suddenly include pretty much every kind of evidence there is? What other evidence is there besides religious tradition, religious writings, and being told something directly by God (and I don’t believe God has ever spoken to me)? Am I missing something?

Of course the Bible is a major part of religious tradition, and is itself a religious tradition. Within that tradition there are many ways of viewing the Bible from a book written by men , to written by men who were inspired by God to, the inerrant word of God. We use the historical evidence we have to make our judgement call on which view is closest to the truth. The truth, after all is the goal. If we deny or skew the facts to defend and preserve tradition we do a disservice to our search for the truth{which will set us free}

No, religious tradition does not include every kind of evidence. The challenge is to discern tradition form truth. There’s nothing inherently wrong with religious tradition but there is a problem when people can’t or won’t acknowledge the difference, and start presenting tradition to others as truth.

I don’t believe you have answered my question. If religious texts fall within the framework of religious traditions, then what other kinds of evidence is there? If I concede that I haven’t received any direct divine inspiration, what sort of evidence could I provide in answer to your request?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Age Quod Agis

I did ask DtC for a cite because I was curious about his explanation. He just said that the reference in Revelations only referred to the book of Revelations. I wanted to know why he thought that.

The reason I think that the reference to “this book” in Revelations need not be read solely to refer to the book of Revelations, but to the entire religious text, is because Revelations was written for the purpose of including it with the other religious texts that now make up our Bible.

No it wasn’t.

How do we know that? It seems a reasonable conclusion from the opening of Revelations

I don’t see anything in there which claims that the author thought his book was supposed to added to any greater religious canon.

So Revelations says that it is divinely inspired

Which is not the same thing as saying it’s part of a larger Bible. The author had no idea that HIS book (which he calls “this book”) would in later centuries be bound up with other books into a single volume that people would refer to collectively as “a” book. That is not the way people perceived scripture back then. There was not yet any concept of the Bible as a single book. It was perceived as a collection of many sacred books. Calling even the Old Testament “a” book would have been anachronistic at the time.

and 2nd Timothy 3:16 says:

The “scripture” referred to in 2 Timothy is only the Tanakh (the OT). There was no other accepted “scripture” at the time.

So Revelations was described as a revelation of Jesus Christ, revealed to John, and which was supposed to be shown to all Christ’s servants.So this wasn’t intended to just be one guy’s musings on the subject of spirituality. Rather, by its own description, it fits the definition of Scripture.

It’s hardly very likely that the author thought he was writing scripture, but even if he did, he still would have had no concept of all scripture being bound into a single book (codex books didn’t even exist yet, they were still using scrolls). “This book” could still only have referred to the specific book he was writing.

[GIGObuster]

For historical background on Revelation, one place to check is the recent PBS’ Frontline investigation:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/brevelation.html

As long as the empire was pagan, Rome could be an historical stand in for Babylon. After all, that’s what the text of apocalypse says. The awkwardness for Christianity, with its own apocalyptic heritage, comes with Christianity’s political success. When Constantine converts to one, remember, just one form of Christianity … in 312, from the perspective of John, the writer of Apocalypse, the beast has entered the church. But from the point of view of Eusebius, one of Constantine’s Bishops, it’s God’s working in history. It’s the revelation of the messianic peace that Isaiah talked about. From Eusebius’ perspective–I mean we’re used to thinking of the empire being Christian, they weren’t, it just happened in their lifetime–this is an unthinkable thought and yet it occurs.

So Eusebius, looking at these traditional apocalyptic texts, knows that the traditional apocalyptic reading has to be wrong, because now the empire is Christian. …The empire isn’t God’s opponent, and therefore, interpretations that look at these text as speaking about God defeating the evil empire of Rome are clearly wrong interpretations, because now God’s servant is himself the emperor.

So what Eusebius will do is, he’s one of a number of Christians who begin to discredit an apocalyptic frame of mind, now that Christianity, in a sense, with the consolidation of power under Constantine, settles down into history. Apocalypticism, for people who are prepared to settle down into history, is something that is old fashioned, is clearly wrong and is therefore heresy.

**Is there a move to exclude Apocalypse from the New Testament? **

The Book of the Apocalypse has a checkered career in the history of the New Testament canon. Canons themselves are local. In some places in the empire, Apocalypse is in the collection, in other places it isn’t. … Different cities have different gospels, and there is no central power, so there is no single agreed upon canon. What you get when you have the Constantinian revolution is a principled opposition to the Book of Apocalypse. Once the weight of communities decide that the book is going to be kept in the collection, then your option is no longer to drop the text, your option is to reinterpret it, and that’s what people do next.

The book of Revelation was this close on being declared apocryphal, but later Augustine decided to add it by assuming it was supposed to be interpreted symbolically not literally, because Babylon (Rome) was now controlled by the church, so books like the Apocalypse were like Richard Nixon’s line that “All previous statements are non-operational”. But there were other reasons why it was added to the canon:

Augustine … adopted the Book of Revelation partly because it had been so troublesome and its place needed to be stabilized. And partly because it helped him solve some other theological dilemmas that he was wrestling with in his own studies. So around 393, 394 it seems there were several councils that were being convened in his own region where debates … with people who believed in greater degree of free will and other kinds of theological issues were all taking place. And during this context of these councils the decision on which books to use in the New Testament as the authority, behind which all other Christian theology would be worked out, came up. Augustine championed using the Book of Revelation within the New Testament, assuming, as others had, that it was actually written by the Apostle John, therefore carrying authority. …

[gonzomax]

If you believe that god made people. Then you believe god made gays. They are children of god and you have no right to questions gods creations. If you say being gay is a choice,then I believe you are playing games to support a preconceived stance. No way in your depth can you beleive gays choose being gay. It is who they are and were born to be.It would be hypocritical to claim being gay is a sin.

[DocCathode]

I agree that being gay is no sin. But, you’re logic is flawed.

@gonzomax

If you believe that god made people. Then you believe god made gays. They are children of god and you have no right to questions gods creations.

People are also born blind, deaf, paraplegic, sociopathic, and there is evidence that pedophiles are born not made.

Besides, many Orthodox Jews believe in Old Earth Creationism. They believe G-d made lobsters, and pigs and that these animals are inherently unclean.

If you say being gay is a choice,then I believe you are playing games to support a preconceived stance. No way in your depth can you beleive gays choose being gay.

Oh, but people do believe this right down to their bones. They also believe that being gay is a sickness that can be cured.

It is who they are and were born to be.It would be hypocritical to claim being gay is a sin.

It’s many things, but it isn’t hypocrisy.

[Jebus_H.Christ]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Ironic that Christians ignored these admonitions and added a whole bunch of new scripture.

Wouldn’t it only be a problem if the Christians added to the Torah itself? Just adding new scripture doesn’t seem to be a problem. The Jews were constantly adding new scripture which ended up making up the Nebi’im and Ketubim books of the Tanakh.

What is really ironic is that this command comes in Deuteronomy.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Jebus H. Christ

Wouldn’t it only be a problem if the Christians added to the Torah itself? Just adding new scripture doesn’t seem to be a problem. The Jews were constantly adding new scripture which ended up making up the Nebi’im and Ketubim books of the Tanakh.

What is really ironic is that this command comes in Deuteronomy.

In this case, I was really only attempting to make a humorous response to Age Quod Agis’ interpretation of those verses, not to comment on authorial intent, and, in point of fact, AQA also quoted from Proverbs, which is not part of the Torah and which warned against adding to “his word,” which would encompass a much broader range than the Torah.

[cosmosdan]

@Age Quod Agis

I’m not actually saying that all religious and spiritual paths are equally valid. I personally have my own beliefs, and I tend to take a dim view of some religious beliefs (Heaven’s Gate, for example). I suspect that we agree on this, since you seem to take a dim view of a spiritual path that includes a belief in Biblical inerrancy.

Please note that I did not say all. I said *different * which is not synonymous with *every *. To clarify, if the goal is to know God as God knows us we must be committed to seeking and living a life of love and truth. {I over simplify for brevity’s sake.}Many religions boil down to those two basics, regardless of their ceremonies and man made traditions. It is the intent of the heart that matters. Cultures and details may vary but a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist or agnostic can be truly seeking love and truth. Those same various people can also choose, fear, hate or power. Most of us are somewhere in between trying to figure things out. People can believe in the inerrant Bible by tradition and still be seeking love and truth. At some point though, when confronted with the truth we have to choose whether we will continue to cling to tradition or not. If we don’t embrace and use the truth brought to us we impede our own spiritual growth.

My point was that according to the Bible, the thoughts of St. Thomas Aquinas weren’t supposed to be considered Christian dogma, and they certainly weren’t supposed to be considered on par with the word of God as revealed through the Bible. If I could rephrase what I wrote, I’d use “God’s word” instead of “the Bible.” But my focus wasn’t on the word “Bible;” it was on the word “dogma.”

I see. I confess I don’t know much about the development of certain doctrinal concepts. While the writings of church leaders isn’t usually considered scripture it makes sense that certain influential leaders have been key in promoting certain interpretations of scripture. In that sense their writings have become doctrine and dogma.
I’d also like to note that often in the NT the word of God or God’s word is referring to the living spirit rather than any written word. Many times I’ve heard those passages used in defending the Bible as the Word of God. IMO that’s an incorrect interpretation.

The reason I think that the reference to “this book” in Revelations need not be read solely to refer to the book of Revelations, but to the entire religious text, is because Revelations was written for the purpose of including it with the other religious texts that now make up our Bible. How do we know that? It seems a reasonable conclusion from the opening of Revelations:So Revelations says that it is divinely inspired, and 2nd Timothy 3:16 says: So Revelations was described as a revelation of Jesus Christ, revealed to John, and which was supposed to be shown to all Christ’s servants. So this wasn’t intended to just be one guy’s musings on the subject of spirituality. Rather, by its own description, it fits the definition of Scripture.

I echo DtC on this one. Even if we accept Revelations as a true divine vision intended to be shared with all believers {ignoring the whole time being near thing} there is *nothing *in the passage you quoted to indicate it was intended to be included in a collection of books. That again is stretching the interpretation unrealistically to fit a belief. It can be interpreted that way only to support an assumed doctrine for which their is little support for and plenty of evidence against. Where is there even one passage that indicates God’s plan that there would ever be one complete authoritative collection of scripture? It doesn’t exist. It is a belief and doctrine created by men and sustained by them in spite of ample evidence against that conclusion.

As for providing evidence other than religious tradition, see my response below.
I don’t believe you have answered my question. If religious texts fall within the framework of religious traditions, then what other kinds of evidence is there? If I concede that I haven’t received any direct divine inspiration, what sort of evidence could I provide in answer to your request?

I know why I don’t believe it. Since this is a reasonably common Christian belief my question is why do some Christians believe it? If the Bible is the inerrant revelation of God’s will to mankind then where does that belief come from? Are their any passages to indicate that it was part of God’s plan? Most Christian beliefs can be supported by Biblical passages even though not all agree on interpretation. How about this one? Is it a reasonable interpretation of all the available material, scriptural and historical? If we are to worship in spirit and in truth and the truth will set us free then it’s our calling to ask these questions. If people say they believe it as a matter of faith my question is, faith in what? Is it faith in God or is it accepting what Christ called a tradition of man?

If we seek to follow a spiritual path then we must interpret religious text. It’s reasonable to give consideration the the interpretations of others in making our own judgement call. We must also consider evidence outside of religious tradition such as scientific and historical evidence. It is primarily a wealth of historical evidence that confirms the Bible cannot be and was not intended to be the inerrant word of God.