Why not create a word for matrimony blessed by GOD (Christian Marriage)

[Carrikature]

This is not a "non-central" belief.

I wish someone would make a list of central beliefs. Consistency is sorely lacking.

[Cow Poke]

The specific decision I'm speaking of is the decision to interpret the Bible as literal and authoritative, and to disregard the possibility that the authors were influenced by their cultural mores rather than by some eternal standard. Again, I'm not saying you are right or wrong. I'm simply verifying my suspicion that this was a conscious choice on your part.

Fair enough.

[Cerebrum123]

The "you're not a Christian" is what I was specifically pointing out. I grant that some people who think they are Christians definitely aren't, but I fail to see how anything more than "you're not living in line with the principles" is something anyone should say. For all that it's touted as being explicitly clear, homosexuality isn't even addressed in the NT. That could be considered important to some, especially since this is considered a new covenant in which the old ways are no longer applicable. The extent of that is murky.

The underlined is simply false.

1 Timothy 1:9-11
New International Version (NIV)
9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:8-10
New International Version (NIV)
8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Maybe you were thinking of the common line that Jesus never mentions it, so it's not important? That line of reasoning fails as well, because Jesus defines what is marriage, and any sex outside of that would be sinful.

Mark 10:5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Yes, the passage is about divorce, but that doesn't entail that marriage is not being defined here. You have to be married in order to get a divorce after all.

[Carrikature]

The underlined is simply false.

1 Timothy 1:9-11
New International Version (NIV)
9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

1 Corinthians 6:8-10
New International Version (NIV)
8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Maybe you were thinking of the common line that Jesus never mentions it, so it's not important? That line of reasoning fails as well, because Jesus defines what is marriage, and any sex outside of that would be sinful.

Mark 10:5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Yes, the passage is about divorce, but that doesn't entail that marriage is not being defined here. You have to be married in order to get a divorce after all.

I stand corrected.

[Outis]

There are also those who self-identify as Christians who think that there are multiple separate gods who earned their godhood at different times. Those are the ones I am talking about that want Christ to conform to them, not the other way around.

They follow the external evidence of the substance and character of the Bible before the internal evidence, and thus come to one conclusion. You follow the internal evidence before the external evidence. Neither position affects a belief in the resurrection of Christ.

[Cow Poke]

They follow the external evidence of the substance and character of the Bible before the internal evidence, and thus come to one conclusion. You follow the internal evidence before the external evidence. Neither position affects a belief in the resurrection of Christ.

I followed the external evidence for the rising of the sun, before I followed the internal evidence. Even though I subsequently learned that the sun doesn't actually "rise", I have had no problem reconciling the two.

[Outis]

I followed the external evidence for the rising of the sun, before I followed the internal evidence.

Does the external evidence actually differ from the internal evidence in that case? They do in the Bible.

[Cow Poke]

Does the external evidence actually differ from the internal evidence in that case? They do in the Bible.

Yuh... so, when the nightly weatherguesser tells us what times sunrise and sunset will be, he's a moron because he doesn't know that the sun doesn't actually "rise" or "set", yeah? He really should say "that point in time when the earth has rotated to such an extent that we can begin to see the sun appear over the horizon....."

[Outis]

Yuh... so, when the nightly newscaster tells us what times sunrise and sunset will be, he's a moron because he doesn't know that the sun doesn't actually "rise" or "set", yeah? He really should say "that point in time when the earth has rotated to such an extent that we can begin to see the sun appear over the horizon....."

I never viewed those as contradictory. As long as I remember, I've always considered them to be synonymous. Then again, at least according to my parents, I was the kid who explained how the intercom worked when my kindergarten teacher called it a "magic box." I was a precocious little snot.

What I'm speaking of is the (internal) evidence that the Bible is an eternal and authoritative standard, as opposed to the (external) evidence that it was a product of its time and culture(s). Those DO lead to different conclusions. Yet as I said, neither one precludes believing in the resurrection of Christ.

[Cow Poke]

I never viewed those as contradictory. As long as I remember, I've always considered them to be synonymous. Then again, at least according to my parents, I was the kid who explained how the intercom worked when my kindergarten teacher called it a "magic box." I was a precocious little snot.

What I'm speaking of is the (internal) evidence that the Bible is an eternal and authoritative standard, as opposed to the (external) evidence that it was a product of its time and culture(s). Those DO lead to different conclusions. Yet as I said, neither one precludes believing in the resurrection of Christ.

Yeah, I was being somewhat facetious ... but I have often heard the argument that the Bible is wrong (or fallible) because it refers to "sunrise" --- I thought that was a pretty dumb argument, because even the brightest and most scientific still use that frame of reference.

[Outis]

Yeah, I was being somewhat facetious ... but I have often heard the argument that the Bible is wrong (or fallible) because it refers to "sunrise" --- I thought that was a pretty dumb argument, because even the brightest and most scientific still use that frame of reference.

Like a lot (but not all) of the "contradiction" arguments, that one's a rank pile of dog droppings.

But I would like your views on the second part of my statement, and Bill's if he has a moment. One person views the Bible as an authoritative and eternal document. One person views the Bible as a fallible human product. Both believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and both profess to be born again.

Is the second person a non-Christian?

[Cow Poke]

Like a lot (but not all) of the "contradiction" arguments, that one's a rank pile of dog droppings.

But I would like your views on the second part of my statement, and Bill's if he has a moment. One person views the Bible as an authoritative and eternal document. One person views the Bible as a fallible human product. Both believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and both profess to be born again.

Is the second person a non-Christian?

I'm not liking the feel of a false dichotomy here... I don't think it's entirely "either / or".

[Outis]

I'm not liking the feel of a false dichotomy here... I don't think it's entirely "either / or".

Bill has expressed his views that it is--at least on this particular topic. If someone views the prohibitions against homosexuality in the Bible as a product of the times and culture of the author, instead of the word of God, that person is not a Christian.

[Bill the Cat]

Like a lot (but not all) of the "contradiction" arguments, that one's a rank pile of dog droppings.

But I would like your views on the second part of my statement, and Bill's if he has a moment. One person views the Bible as an authoritative and eternal document. One person views the Bible as a fallible human product. Both believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and both profess to be born again.

Is the second person a non-Christian?

Believing in the Resurrection is not sufficient, nor is simply professing to be born again. Jesus spoke approvingly of the scriptures, calling them the "Word of God". It stands to reason that if it isn't God's Word, and is simply the product of fallible humans without divine guidance, then Jesus was wrong, and thus He was not the Truth, as He claimed. He told the Pharisees to search the scriptures, for they testified of Him. He did not say to pick and choose which parts they thought should apply to them and which could be dismissed as human musings.

Sorry for rambling. I'm on lunch break.

[Cow Poke]

Bill has expressed his views that it is--at least on this particular topic. If someone views the prohibitions against homosexuality in the Bible as a product of the times and culture of the author, instead of the word of God, that person is not a Christian.

I'll defer that to Bill, but I think you're taking liberties with what he actually said.