Among biblical fundamentalists/literalists, the increasing acceptance of gays from the society will reduce the authority of society.
Yes it will and I hope it will erode it a lot, but I expect its total impact will be another drop in the bucket. Its a good move, a decent move, a moral move, but I don’t expect the bible to be toppled so quickly, unfortunately
I thought Jesus was supposedly speaking through Paul. If not, where does Paul get any authority from? Which of Paul’s letters and admonitions are from Jesus (or the risen Christ?) and which ones are pulled from elsewhere? I’m not being snarky – this is the first time that I’ve heard that there’s a distinction, for Christians, between what Paul said and what Jesus said. Most of the rules and regs of Christian churches come from Paul, right?
Paul actually explicitly distinguishes (on at least one occasion) between him speaking on authority from Jesus, and him speaking on his own authority. It was, interestingly enough, regarding another sexual morality issue.
“But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away…But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.”
But honoring the Sabbath isn’t from Leviticus - it’s from Exodus. In fact, it’s one of the Ten Commandments.
But only in the short term. A hundred years ago, it wasn’t unusual to hear people preaching segregation from the pulpits, using the Bible as evidence for their positions. Now, that’s something you only hear from the fringiest of the Christian fringe. Give the gay rights movement another fifty years or so, and the Levitican argument against homosexuality will go the same way as the Sons of Ham.
The slave better do it too.
Exodus 21:20-21
"“If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”
Why would it go away? Christianity is LGBTQ-positive. Increasing acceptance of LGBTQ individuals is a triumph of Christian values.
Questioning the authority of Paul, and the validity of his claims about what happened on the road to Damascus, is a very small but growing trend (which I consider myself part of) among Christians. Most of us tend to be anarchists and pacifists, thanks to the influence of Leo Tolstoy in this line of thinking.
Almost everything substantial the modern church depends upon assuming that Paul wasn’t lying or deluded about that.
I probably shouldn’t have used shrimp as an example; I just lumped it in with the other things since it had already been previously mentioned. That said …
I think the peasants in the feudal system can reasonably be considered slaves. There are many different types of slavery, and I don’t mind people differentiating between serfs and other types of slavery. Nevertheless, that’s just terminology. If a US state tried to implement serfdom, they would rightfully be accused of implementing slavery.
Your cite says that it’s relatively recent that there is a formal doctrine of inerrancy. That’s probably true. I’m not talking about formal doctrines.
I remember when that poll was first discussed on the SDMB. As I recall, the general consensus (which I agree with), is that people don’t know what the hell the word “literally” means.
And not to be argumentative, but I don’t think even most literalists really do believe it to the extent they claim. They merely claim to believe it. They may even believe that they believe it. But they don’t actually believe it.
Anyway, I think the broad picture is pretty clear in one respect - the general trend is away from using the Bible as authoritative. The authority of the Bible has clearly been eroded. Does anybody disagree with that point? Once that’s established, the question is whether any portion of this trend has been caused by social changes such as opposition to slavery and the like. If that can be established, then the question isn’t “Will gay acceptance erode the Bible’s authority?” but instead, “Is this social change somehow different from the others in some important way? Because if not, it will likely continue to erode the authority of the Bible, just like the similar changes in the past.”
I think that second step is obviously true, but I suppose I could be wrong. Let me put it this way:
(1) It is generally agreed-upon that some moral or factual position taken from the Bible is true.
(2) Later, the truth of that position becomes significantly controversial. In some cases the controversy comes from the same authority (the Bible), but with a different interpretation. However, in other cases it comes from a non-Biblical source. (Astronomical observations, personal moral intuition, philosophical reasoning, whatever.)
(3) Later still, it is generally agreed-upon that the original moral or factual position is incorrect. While some people still use the old source of authority to justify this new belief (with a new interpretation), there are others who use a new source of authority.
Unless there are a significant number of people who are actually adding the Bible as authoritative in some aspect (whether moral or cosmological), then this should result in an erosion of Biblical authority. Slowly, perhaps - but that’s generally how erosion works.
:dubious: Hardly; history demonstrates otherwise. “Increasing acceptance of LGBTQ individuals” is a victory against Christian values; it’s just that the more victory appears inevitable, the more Christians engage in their standard behavior of pretending Christianity supported it all along and try to steal the credit for their religion. That’s how Christians always acts when Christianity loses.
Well there you go OP, there’s your answer.
Step 1) “I’m a Christian, which means I get my morals from the One True Source, Jesus Christ and the Bible, which says that homosexuality is wrong.”
Step 2) ???
Step 3) “I’m a Christian, which means I get my morals from the One True Source, Jesus Christ and the Bible, which says that homosexuality is A-OK.”
Those people weren’t and aren’t Christians. They may have called themselves, but they plainly rejected the teachings of the Christ.
Christianity is not the Church. Christianity is the Christ. The Church has, for nearly two thousand years, rejected the Christ while dishonestly calling itself the house of Christ.
Thanks for clearing that up!
Could you expand on divorce being nonbiblical? I may be forgetting something, but we Jews have had rabbinically sanctioned divorce for at least a few thousand years. You go to a bet din ( a religious court of three rabbis) and say why you want the divorce (a woman can get a divorce on the grounds that her husband doesn’t have sex with her often enough. Maimonides made a list of just how often was required based on the husband’s occupation). If the court agrees you receive a get, a religious certificate of divorce.
Back To The OP
As a Jew, I have to deal with one line that prohibits homosexuality. There are plenty of fun ways to interpret that line.
They weren’t True Scotsmen, either.
It’s not a “No True Scotsman” to say that no six-footer is actually 5’10" tall. Similarly, it’s not a No True Scotsman to say that no one who thoroughly rejects the fundamental precepts of Christianity is in fact not a Christian.
Do you seriously not grasp the conceptual distinction between formal and informal fallacies?
A Christian is simply someone who says they are Christian, there are no such “fundamental precepts”. Christianity is defined by the beliefs of the people who practice it, not by a semi-mythical dead guy.
And for most of the history of Christianity, the vast bulk of Christians have hated homosexuals.
OK, sure.
Not the same thing. The “Hate the sin, love the sinner” types certainly believe they’re following the fundamental precepts of Christianity. That you disagree with them doesn’t make them any less Christian. Unless Jesus comes forth and clarifies what his fundamental precepts are, there will always be differing interpretations; rejecting some of them as “not really Christian” is very much the definition of the NTS fallacy.
The arrow of causation goes the other way. Because the Bible’s authority has been eroded, gay acceptance happened. Blame the Enlightenment.