I’m not sure that I agree with you on that - depending on what you mean, it seems too broad a brush, both in content and the assertion that all Christians are in agreement on this point.
If you mean that both the Gospels and the Epistles have been recognised canonically as being scripture, yes; but if you’re putting Paul’s statements on exact par with the teachings of Jesus, no. That sounds as if you’re either reducing Jesus and bringing him down on par with other people, or you’re elevating Paul to equality with Jesus. Either way, it poses problems. It may be that some groups of Christians take that approach, but I don’t think it’s proper to say that this holds for all Christians.
Just being in the Bible doesn’t mean that each book, and each author, carries the same weight. I’m reminded of Luther’s famous dismissal of the Epistle of James as the “epistle of straw” because of the emphasis that the author of James placed on good works. That didn’t fit in well with Luther’s theology of salvation by faith alone based on his readings of Paul, so he condemned the epistle of James. However, other theologians take different views of this issue, and a correspondingly different view of James.
You, I, and anyone who has followed these discussions for more than a month or two, or who has read anything on the subject of homosexuality in Scripture, are all well aware of that. The issue I presented above, with fear and trepidation lest it be seen I was arguing for it, was why do they, the evangelicals, consider Scripture to condemn homosexuality but not pelecypodophagy.
As for why evangelical Christians should treat gays with respect, the answer is explicit in the words of the Person they revere as God Incarnate:
Asked to clarify who is one’s neighbor, Jesus told a story about a Jewish man attacked and beaten by robbers on the highway, who was ignored by a leading televangelist and a Republican judge as he lay there broken and bleeding, and then was aided by a gay Moslem Arab man, who proved to be the one who was truly a neighbor unto him. (Of course, He picked the stereotypical characters of His day rather than the modern-dress versions I mentioned.)
I’m not debating the ethics of WW2 or the current war or war in general for my own sake. I’m debating whether it’s hypocritical to base your moral code on the teachings of Christ and yet feel it’s perfectly alright to kill people (no matter how much they deserve it).
And even the animal has to die- that always seemed a bit unfair. Also to die: brides who cannot prove they were virgins on their wedding night, disobedient chirren, etc… For that matter, a daughter molested by her father might have to as well because it doesn’t specify that only consensual incest should be punishable by death.
So that’s why women aren’t allowed to speak in church today is because of Paul? Oh wait… they can?
So does that mean the bunny rabbit can live now?
All of which gets away from the OP: You say that the Noachic Law is still in force and permits the death penalty. You state that the prohibition for homosexual activity between males is still in force. The OT says that the penalty for homosexuals is death. Do you believe that homosexuals should be executed, and why not?
Do any of these people have an annotated version of Leviticus or Deuteronomy that identifies which propositions are and aren’t still binding, and explains why?
ISTM that discussions with these people are like wrestling with shifting sands - no matter which Scriptures are cited by either side, theirs are The Word Of The Lord, and ours are “That’s just Old Testament Law, and we’re under grace now.”
Of course, the same thing happens even with NT passages, so it’s not just the law/grace divide. Turn the other cheek? “What the Scripture really means is (fill in creative dodge here).” Ditto pretty much anything Jesus ever taught that’s actually hard to follow.
Can we just call them “cafeteria inerrantists”? I think it’s overdue.
That’s what I said, innit? Individual people may put more weight on one book over another, and people may well attach more emotional significance to the words of Christ. But the institutional churches and the vast, vast, vast majority of Christians have always held Pauls’ letters to be God-breathed scripture that cannot just be waved away.
Which even as a child I never understood. It was Simon/Peter upon whom Jesus himself conveyed spiritual authority. Paul never even met Jesus (well, briefly, on a road trip). disagreed with Peter on numerous matters, didn’t even seem to be familiar with the Virgin Birth or other tenets of the Gospels and for years had never even met any of the Apostles and yet is seen as inerrant. Why is he given equal weight?
Why do you think they would know about the part in parenthesis?
Many of these people would take offense at the notion that they know any furrein words - don’t even mention to them that Christianity is a branch of Judaism unless you feel like being burn at the stake.
Which doesn’t address the fact that evangelicals interpret scripture differently than you; as I understood the OP, he was not asking for a critique of evangelical beliefs; rather it was "given what evangelicals believe… "
Not quite. What he said is that other things than the nuclear family were quite acceptable, including how Christ Himself lived.
Predictably, it got spun. By the Telegraph, of all places. My respect for that paper has just plummeted. Here’s the article. (If you’re gay, Episcopalian, or easily irritated by journalistic spin, please get a couple of aspirin and an antacid before clicking on link.)
The precise quote from the article:
Robinson went on to describe the problems of his own youth as a gay teenager. Predictably, David Virtue (for whom “David Vicious” would probably be more apt) had nothing but negativity to say about it.
Frankly, I’m sick of religious condemnation of homosexulaity as well as Dodson’s disgust with gays.
As a retired physician most of us realize that few gays voluntarily desire to become gays…it is most likely genetic and the religious bent getting involved in opinion not based on any foundation other than the Bible is getting suffocating to me as it inserts its tentacles into just about everything and so massively…
Even stronger than that: Jesus said, I can’t remember the exact words, He was replacing the old eye for an eye teachings with love one another teachings.
If Christians follow the teachings of Jesus they will not judge gays.
Unfortunately they do judge gays and about everything else they can think of.
In the tradition of The DaVinci Code, it’s The Michelangelo Maze (in which it’s revealed that what He is really holding in the sculpture is a t for "toodles!.
The problem lies in the contradictory nature of the Old and New Testaments and the belief that the Bible is the literal Word of God.
The Bible was written by men for particular audiences and is highly political. A great deal of dogma needs to be ignored in order to get to the essential spiritual truths. If one paid attention to The Golden Rule, the rest would be absolutely unnecessary.
Nitpick: There are only 2 verses in the Bible condemning homosexuality. One of them proscribes the death penalty.
No, he wasn’t. If he was referring to homosexuality at all, he was very vague. Romans 1:19-27 talks about how God changed the sexual orientation of idolaters. I don’t understand how so many people cite this verse, clearly confusing the punishment with the sin. If that is a clear condemnation of homosexuality, then paying a fine is a crime.
The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV) renders 1 Corinthians 6:9 as follows: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,” […continues in verse 10]
The footnote for verses 9-10 states “The Greek terms translated male prostitutes and sodomites do not refer to “homosexuals,” as in inappropriate older translations; “masturbators” and male prostitutes might be a better translation…”
1 Timothy 1:9-10 is pretty much the same as Corinthians.
So I guess that how clear Paul is depends on which translation you’re looking at. As Dio explained in better detail, in the original Greek, it’s not clear at all. (I understand if you’re saying that “it’s clear to people who already believe that homosexuality is bad”, but then again, to some people (read: people looking for justification) Genesis 9:22- 25 is a clear condemnation of blacks.)
