What is the correct way to interpret the Bible?

[Justin108]

those that interpret the bible correctly will never find any of its statements contradict proven scientific fact.

What is the "correct" way to interpret the Bible? Is there an objective "correct" way to interpret the Bible? If so, what methods should one employ to interpret the Bible "correctly"?

Let's use Genesis 1 as an example. What is the correct interpretation of Genesis 1 and what method did you employ to conclude your interpretation?

Specifically...

1. Is Genesis 1 literal or metaphorical? (what method did you use to reach this conclusion?)

2. If it is metaphorical, what is it a metaphor for? (what method did you use to reach this conclusion?)

3. What is your explanation for the Genesis 1 claim that God created plants before he created the sun? (and again, what method did you use to reach this conclusion?)

[Monta]

[Replying to post 119 by tam]


"As God said:

"This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to Him."

But how many people who profess Christ as Lord, listen instead to men, to religion, to the "Bible as a whole"... instead of to Christ, first and foremost; too often even OVER Christ and His word?"

Many Christians seem to think they are experts on OT and get to all sorts of weird conclusions when, as you say, we've been instructed to listen to the Lord Christ words as spoken in the NT and his Apostols.

I see this mainly with fundamentalist Christians who get OT scripture and make excuises for Israel who are justified stealing the land from Palestinians by force. Somehow it is alright with the Lord that they destroy their livelyhoods, imprison their children making wars with them which imo is totally against the Lord's teaching and anti-Christian.

[RightReason]

[Replying to tam]

So you are clarifying then that there was nothing to correct from what I said? Yes?

I used the word actually to point out your understanding was incomplete. You were trying to school Justin by pointing out Scripture is not considered the Truth by suggesting only Jesus is. In your haste you failed to mention BOTH Jesus and the Church are referred to as Truth. I thought that worthy of an actually

Quote:

Quote:
But I think you demonstrate the difference between following and bearing witness to a religion versus following and bearing witness to Christ.

I put Christ and His word first. Here you have put Paul first, and instead of seeking to understand what Paul meant according to what Christ taught FIRST (testing Paul's words against Christ, the Light), you take away from Christ.


Who told you to test things by the light of Christ? Oh, that would be Paul!!!!!!!


Christ taught me to test the inspired expression and He told me how to do that.

Could you post the verse from Paul saying to do this?

I was assuming you were referring to these words from Paul:

but test all things. Hold fast to what is good. -1 Thessalonians 5:21

Are you referring to these words from John?
brothers test every inspired expression to see if it originates with God or not -1 John 4:1-4

If so, my point remains, even if you cant admit it, much of what you do and believe comes to you by way of the Church, which is exactly as Christ intended. You had faith in the Church giving you the Bible. Now you want to claim you only respond to Christ. Not so.

Quote:
You dont get to pick and choose which parts of Scripture you think are more important and which parts you want to accept and which you dont.


By scripture, you mean the entire Bible, right? Yes, I do get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are more important. I'm not even picking and choosing, per se; just following my Lord. And if my Lord is the Truth; the Word of God; the Image of God; the Son of God; the Chosen One of Jah (MischaJAH) - and He is these things - then obviously, anything from Him is more important than anything from Paul (or any other person). Do you think Paul would have argued otherwise?

I think Paul might have agreed with me that you avoided the question. I think Jesus would have been very disappointed in us if we dont listen to those He sent. I think He would not be happy if we say Christ is Truth, without acknowledging that Scripture (the Word of God) also refers to His Church as Truth.

Quote:

Scripture is to be read as a whole. Thats what I am doing in arriving at the conclusion that Christ established His Church, which was described in Scripture as the pillar and foundation of truth.


Or maybe what you should be doing is listening to Christ first and foremost

Same thing. Or havent you read all of Scripture.

did Christ ever say, look to the scriptures as a whole to know the truth?

Of course not, as I always point out to those who see Scripture alone as our authority. He did however say look to the Church. Scripture cant speak. Christ knows we need His Church to interpret and help us.

And did God say, these are the scriptures, that I have chosen, listen to them?

Huh? Isnt that what youre doing? Taking isolated passages? We are told all Scripture is sufficient. Let us not leave out the parts that dont fit into our existing worldview.

Is it usurping God to listen to His son? Then why is it usurping Christ to listen to His Church?

Or did Christ say this:

"I am the Truth."

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.



Note my Lord's words:

"Learn from me."

We could stay here all day quoting Scripture to one another. Do you want me to quote everything in Scripture that wasnt a direct quote from Jesus and you can tell me whether we should ignore it. OR, how about I post AGAIN all the direct quotes from Christ telling us to listen to His Church.

Please stop for a minute and listen to what you are actually saying. You are claiming we are to learn from Christ, while ignoring His words. That is illogical.

But how many people who profess Christ as Lord, listen instead to men, to religion, to the "Bible as a whole"... instead of to Christ, first and foremost; too often even OVER Christ and His word?

Many. I agree. And they would be wrong. But just as is recognized from Jesus Himself, Do as they say, and not as they do. Jesus was not doing away with the idea of an authoritative body entrusted to interpret and safeguard His teachings. On the contrary. His point emphasized just how necessary that is.

It is right and good to clean up any misconduct in Gods Church and to even demand those put in charge do as they should, but dont throw the baby out with the bath water. In fact, Christ is warning us to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. He established a Church and we need her and we can trust Him that He will remain with His Church and protect her.

Some families have parents who screw up or are abusive or bad examples to their children, but this doesnt mean we ought to do away with families. It is from the family we are to learn and grow and learn to love. That was always Gods plan. The fact that some families fail to live up to this does not negate the importance of the family.

"No one comes to Father except through the Son." (note that my Lord does not say, except through the "church" or except through the 'scriptures as a whole', etc).

What are you talking about?


************************
In the Gospel of Mark, after the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to the Eleven and gave them the commission, "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk. 16:15-16).

In order to accept or reject the Gospel, each person must have it preached to him. If acceptance or rejection of the truth were based on private revelations given to each man, woman, and child, there would be no need for Christ to commission the Apostles to preach the Gospel. Jesus desired to reveal Himself through His body, the Church.

Jesus graces us with His incarnation, and His presence is known through His body, the Church. The Church carries on the work of Christ here on earth.

The will of God is for "all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). To fulfill His will, Jesus commissioned the Apostles to preach the Gospel and baptize those who would embrace it (Mk. 16:16). He gave us the Sacrament of Baptism and unity with the Church as the ordinary means of salvation. By Baptism we are made sharers in the life of Christ. When we participate in the fullness of life within the Church, we remain obedient children of God with the Church as our Mother. To provide assurance for the salvation of all men, we must fulfill the command of Christ to evangelize the world and bring all into His body, the Church.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/rel ... ation.html


Again, your comments are not the whole picture. Other things we know about salvation . . .


Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, and in which you stand firm. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.I Corinthians 15:1,2

*******************

When speaking of salvation, Jesus offered this . . .
He who believes and is baptized will be saved. (Mk 16:16)

nless you repent you will all likewise perish. (Lk 13:3)

[H]e who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (Jn 6:54)


Notice that in these three verses Jesus associated salvation with baptism, confession, and the Eucharist, respectively. Catholics recognize that these sacraments are administered through the Church. In fact, in the case of the latter two, a validly ordained priest is necessary for their administration, so the sacrament of ordination must also be associated with salvation. A primary role of the Catholic Church in conjunction with salvation is becoming quite clear.



https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print ... urch-means

For the husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church, His body, of which He is the Savior. Ephesians 5:24

No one is denying Christ as the head of His Church " no duh. Again, the head of something can appoint others to lead and teach and preach. And so He has, as is clear from Scripture. Typically if the boss hires a manager, we are expected to listen to the manager. To not do so is a slap in the face to the boss. And to do so does in no way undermine the authority or leadership of the boss " it actually acknowledges and confirms it!

You deeply miss the point. You think you are taking a more purist view by claiming you only answer to Christ, but you cant out do Christ. You cant be more holy or more pure than Christ and He told us to listen to His Church.

Peace again to you,

Peace to you as well. I respect your worldview, but as you can see I find it lacks support and evidence from Scripture, from Christs actual words, and from logic and reason.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 120 by Justin108]

Wow! Now that is a whole lot of nothing. Let me try very hard to not go point by point and focus on the gist of your argument.

What's more first hand than the Bible?

Seriously? The Church came before the Bible and where in the Bible does it say the Bible is or should be our sole authority?

Your entire argument keeps coming down to basing the truth only on what is specifically in the Bible and the Bible doesnt even say that.

In fact, this is what we find . . .


I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. 13However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come.-John 16

If Jesus taught contraception is a sin first hand, he would have mentioned as much in the Bible.

Not so fast . . .

I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. 13However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come.-John 16

I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete. 2 John 1

RightReason wrote:


The early Church, even Jewish scholars, taught the story of Onan in Scripture referred to the sin of contraception. So, why in 1930 did it no longer?

I don't know. And I don't care. All I can do is speculate

Ok, but how or why in the world should one accept your interpretation of Onan? How do you know those that now dont think Onan was a teaching against contraception are getting it right? That is just one more of multiple interpretations. Which is correct? It seems like the one you personally are deeming the most reasonable " LOL!

Leviticus 20:13
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

How much interpretation is needed to conclude from this verse that homosexuality is a sin? Not much.

So says you. Others disagree. In fact, some argue Leviticus also said it was a sin to eat shellfish and yet we no longer abide by that command. So, why are homosexual acts still to be seen as sinful? See how this works? What you think as perfectly clear " isnt. Everyone thinks their interpretation is the right and reasonable one, or they wouldnt believe it, right?

Then explain why the same scripture is so precise about some sins (homosexuality) yet so insanely vague about contraception?

Not insanely vague, you just keep repeating that. There is the story of Onan. There is Genesis and the story of creation, there is the command form God, Be fruitful and multiply there are psalms and proverbs singing the praises of accepting Gods plan for man and His design of our fertility . . .


Psalm 127:3-5 Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them


Psalm 127:4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth


John 16:20b-22 You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy. 21A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world. 22So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy.


Psalm 127:5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them.


Deuteronomy 30:19 Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live.


Psalm 133:1-2 How good it is, how pleasant, where the brothers dwell as one!


Proverbs 17:6 Grandchildren are the crown of the aged


Psalm 128:3-4 Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table. Behold, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the LORD

please explain how "be fruitful and multiply" means "don't use contraception"?

I already explained God put no limitations on this command. I also explained how it is one among many other clues from Scripture on knowing about the immorality of contraception. My argument is IMO, more valid than your argument that we cant know God frowns upon contraception.

So a couple who chooses to be abstinent to avoid pregnancy don't see children as a blessing? People who use NFP to avoid pregnancy don't see children as a blessing?

Sometimes you are correct, a couple could practice NFP for the wrong reasons and if they did " they would be wrong. But they would be guilty of other sins like not trusting God or selfishness, or something like that. They would not be guilty of the sin of actively and purposely stopping/blocking the natural consequences of the marital act. You cant be guilty of this sin if you arent engaging in the sexual act.

But you also fail to understand the Churchs teaching on this matter. NFP should only be undertaken temporarily and for grave reasons, less the couple indeed runs the risk of failing to see children a blessing. Like I said the Church's teaching is beautiful and reasonable.

Please point out a flaw in my interpretation of the story of Onan?

The sin for disobeying the command to marry and have the children of ones brothers widow was not death, so that was not Onans sin. If Onans sin was one of disobedience, why the need for Scripture to go into graphic detail that he spilled his seed. Scripture could have simply said he refused to lie with Tamar. But he didnt he had sex with her, but pulled out and was struck dead. In addition to that, my interpretation is the interpretation that every Christian and Jewish religion believed and upheld. Where they reading the same Bible as you? How do you know their interpretation is flawed and not yours?

I must have missed it. Can you repeat your number of reasons?

See above.



[qutoae]RightReason wrote:


Ok, but why should we accept your interpretation of Scripture?

As explained, it does not require extensive interpretation[/quote]

Said every sincere truth seeking Christian ever. So, I repeat . . . clearly, it isnt clear. So, how can you be sure yours is right?

Regarding non-scriptural support: I don't care.

Pity because it is contrary to Scripture to see Scripture alone as our authority. See my first few responses in this post.

The flaw here is that your personal reasoning is not law.

Bingo! And pot meet kettle. The fact that you and I come to very different conclusions with regard to this proves we were never intended to use Scripture alone. That is NOT the correct way to read the Bible. Thank you for making this so very obvious!

I don't know. And I don't care. This is an appeal to tradition. [/quotae]

Of course it is an appeal to Tradition. Scripture tells us to listen to the Church (Tradition). Scripture tells us there was much more than is written in Scripture that we should know. Scripture tells us to not only to listen to that which is written, but also to that which has been orally passed down (Tradition).

All that is relevant is what the Bible says.

Says who?

Can you please point me to where the Bible directly condemns contraception?

Why? That is not how we are to understand, read, and interpret Sacred Scripture

The foreskin protects the nerve endings on the head of the penis. Cutting off the foreskin results in insensitivity and reduced sexual pleasure. The natural function of the foreskin is protecting the penis. So why would we cut it off?

We wouldnt. And I dont, but doing so does not change the function of the penis or stop or alter or change the function of the body.


Ok, gonna try hard to leave it at this. I think I made most of the points I wanted to.

I stand by my original post about the correct way to interpret the Bible. I take it you disagree. It is my opinion that there is more evidence and support of my methodology than yours. Mine also makes more sense logically speaking, so theres that too.

[tam]

[Replying to post 122 by RightReason]

Peace to you RR,

[Replying to tam]

So you are clarifying then that there was nothing to correct from what I said? Yes?

I used the word actually to point out your understanding was incomplete.

Was it incomplete? Or is it the teaching and understanding of the RCC that is in error? Lets examine:

You were trying to school Justin by pointing out Scripture is not considered the Truth by suggesting only Jesus is.

Christ is the Truth. He states so Himself. The Bible contains scripture (the Psalms, the Prophets, Moses, and Revelation). The Bible also contains letters that were not inspired (not given in spirit), that often dealt with specific issues of the day; as well as gospel accounts bearing witness to Christ and what Christ said and did.

But the Bible is not the Truth. It never even makes that claim of itself.

In your haste you failed to mention BOTH Jesus and the Church are referred to as Truth. I thought that worthy of an actually

Saying something is a pillar and foundation of the truth is not the same as saying that something IS the Truth.

Not when Christ Himself has already identified Himself as the Truth.

But for the sake of argument, even if Paul did mean that the Church is the Truth, how in the world could that be referring to the RCC? Does falsehood come from the Truth? Does the Truth tell lies and teach error? Do you think the RCC has never taught something false? Ordered the "church" to do something that was against Christ's teachings? If it is the Truth, then how could error and falsehood come from it?

There is no way... none whatsoever... that the RCC (or any religion) is the Truth. Every single one of them has (and does) teach falsehood, even if in ignorance.


ONLY CHRIST is the Truth. He is the ONLY one (other than God, Himself) who can TRUTHFULLY bear the title, "Truth".

Quote:

Quote:
But I think you demonstrate the difference between following and bearing witness to a religion versus following and bearing witness to Christ.

I put Christ and His word first. Here you have put Paul first, and instead of seeking to understand what Paul meant according to what Christ taught FIRST (testing Paul's words against Christ, the Light), you take away from Christ.


Who told you to test things by the light of Christ? Oh, that would be Paul!!!!!!!


Christ taught me to test the inspired expression and He told me how to do that.

Could you post the verse from Paul saying to do this?

I was assuming you were referring to these words from Paul:

but test all things. Hold fast to what is good. -1 Thessalonians 5:21

I wasn't. I was not referring to anything written. I said, and repeat, it is my Lord, Himself, who taught me how to test what others claim, to see if they are speaking from Him, to see if what they claim is true (or not).

What He told me is backed up by what is written, but I learned it first from Him.

However... if you thought that Paul is the one who taught people to do hold things up against the light of Christ, then how in the world are you maintaining the idea that we have to listen to someone or something else? Test things against someone or something else? Hold things up to the 'light' of someone or something else?

Are you referring to these words from John?
brothers test every inspired expression to see if it originates with God or not -1 John 4:1-4

These words from John state (and so corroborate) testing the inspired expression, yes.

Quote:
You dont get to pick and choose which parts of Scripture you think are more important and which parts you want to accept and which you dont.


By scripture, you mean the entire Bible, right? Yes, I do get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are more important. I'm not even picking and choosing, per se; just following my Lord. And if my Lord is the Truth; the Word of God; the Image of God; the Son of God; the Chosen One of Jah (MischaJAH) - and He is these things - then obviously, anything from Him is more important than anything from Paul (or any other person). Do you think Paul would have argued otherwise?

I think Paul might have agreed with me that you avoided the question.

What question? The only person avoiding a question here seems to be you.

I think Jesus would have been very disappointed in us if we dont listen to those He sent. I think He would not be happy if we say Christ is Truth, without acknowledging that Scripture (the Word of God) also refers to His Church as Truth.

Along with being the Truth, Christ is also the Word of God.

As for the rest, see above.

Quote:

Scripture is to be read as a whole. Thats what I am doing in arriving at the conclusion that Christ established His Church, which was described in Scripture as the pillar and foundation of truth.


Or maybe what you should be doing is listening to Christ first and foremost

Same thing. Or havent you read all of Scripture.

It is not the same thing.

How many people out there claim to read 'scripture as a whole', and use that to justify any number of interpretations? People can make 'scripture as a whole' say whatever they want it to say. So that even though the only thing Christ says of 'heretics' is "do not go after them, do not listen to them", someone claiming to be listening to 'scripture as a whole' will say, 'persecute them, put them on trial, confiscate their belongings, punish them, execute them or hand them over to be executed.'

Even though Christ never forced anyone to 'convert', someone reading 'scripture as a whole', decides that it is okay to make people convert to their religion, which makes absolutely no sense at all because you cannot force people to receive holy spirit, which is something that Christ GIVES.

Even though Christ enslaved no one, but made HIMSELF a slave, to serve others, and even though He told us to love one another just as He loves us, and He told us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, etc, etc... someone reading 'scripture as a whole' decided that "Christians" were permitted to enslave people against their will, treat them without love, beat them, rape them, murder them, use them, steal their children, etc, etc.


No one in the above scenarios was listening to Christ, and those are just a few scenarios. But they all claim to be listening to the Bible "as a whole", believing IT to be the Word of God (even over Christ) and believing IT to be the Truth (even over Christ).

None of them put Christ first, and none of them were obeying Christ at all. That includes your RCC.

did Christ ever say, look to the scriptures as a whole to know the truth?

Of course not, as I always point out to those who see Scripture alone as our authority. He did however say look to the Church. Scripture cant speak. Christ knows we need His Church to interpret and help us.

Scripture can't speak, but Christ CAN, and His sheep listen to His voice.

My sheep listen to my voice.

And did God say, these are the scriptures, that I have chosen, listen to them?

Huh? Isnt that what youre doing? Taking isolated passages? We are told all Scripture is sufficient. Let us not leave out the parts that dont fit into our existing worldview.

Nope.

I am simply listening to Christ, as God told me to do, as my Lord has said to remain in His word, to obey Him, to listen to Him and His voice, to follow Him, to love Him most and put Him first.

Is it usurping God to listen to His son?

God said to listen to His Son.

Then why is it usurping Christ to listen to His Church?

It is usurping Christ to listen to and look to anyone or anything else before, over, or against Him.

Why not just listen to Him? Truly?

His sheep do this, as He said that they would. We CAN do this. Religion might teach otherwise, but they have a vested interest in keeping people listening to them, giving to them (money, obedience, time, work, etc, etc).

Christ's Church (His Body, His Bride) is to listen to Him. Go where they are sent as well, speaks as He gives them to speak, obey His commands and teach others to do the same.

Or did Christ say this:

"I am the Truth."

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.



Note my Lord's words:

"Learn from me."

We could stay here all day quoting Scripture to one another.

Who is avoiding the question again?

Do you want me to quote everything in Scripture that wasnt a direct quote from Jesus and you can tell me whether we should ignore it. OR, how about I post AGAIN all the direct quotes from Christ telling us to listen to His Church.

You don't have any direct quotes from Him saying that.


(I clipped out the rest for now in an effort to stay on track and because some things were already responded to in previous posts. I have responded to the rest, but will wait to submit it for a bit)


Peace also to you, and to your household,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Justin108]

Wow! Now that is a whole lot of nothing.

Not unlike the Biblical laws against contraception.

What's more first hand than the Bible?

Seriously? The Church came before the Bible

And we have no idea what the first Church said, other than what the Bible tells us. Anything regarding the first Christians not found in the Bible is conjecture.

and where in the Bible does it say the Bible is or should be our sole authority?

What other authority do you suggest? Your church? Sure, I can imagine there are Christian other authorities outside the Bible, but once you step outside the Bible, it becomes he-said/she-said. "My church is right and yours isn't". So unless you can specify and demonstrate infallible authorities outside of the Bible, I have no reason to consider it as authoritative.

Your entire argument keeps coming down to basing the truth only on what is specifically in the Bible and the Bible doesnt even say that.

The one thing all Christian denominations agree on is that the Bible has absolute authority. Any other authority you present is not worth considering unless you can demonstrate why we should consider it an infallible authority. "My Church says..." doesn't cut it.

In fact, this is what we find . . .


I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. 13However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come.-John 16

When all else fails, just appeal to the Spirit of truth. "I have the Spirit of truth, so everything I say is automatically right". I have heard so many people from so many different denominations claiming to be lead by the Spirit of truth. Why should I even think to consider you're any different from them? None of them thought contraception is a sin (despite them being lead by the Spirit of truth). So why should I believe you when you say the Spirit of truth considers contraception a sin?

If Jesus taught contraception is a sin first hand, he would have mentioned as much in the Bible.

Not so fast . . .

I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it...

Are you suggesting that a condemnation of contraception is something so mind blowing, we cannot bear to hear it? Is that what Jesus was talking about? The great secret of John 16 is "don't pull out"?

I don't know. And I don't care. All I can do is speculate

Ok, but how or why in the world should one accept your interpretation of Onan?

Because if you don't, then in order to be consistent, you would also have to believe that turning around is a sin.

- God told Onan to impregnate Tamar
- Onan disobeyed and "spilled the seed"
- God killed Onan
- Therefore, "spilling the seed" is a sin

- God told Lot's family to flee Sodom and not look around
- Lot's wife disobeyed and looked around
- God killed Lot's wife
- Therefore, looking around is a sin


If "spilling the seed" is a sin, then to be consistent, one must also believe that looking around is a sin.

How do you know those that now dont think Onan was a teaching against contraception are getting it right? That is just one more of multiple interpretations. Which is correct? It seems like the one you personally are deeming the most reasonable " LOL!

Other than "LOL" and "well that's just your interpretation", can you point out an actual flaw in my interpretation? Or do you simply dismiss it because it doesn't fit your narrative?

Leviticus 20:13

"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

How much interpretation is needed to conclude from this verse that homosexuality is a sin? Not much.

So says you. Others disagree. In fact, some argue Leviticus also said it was a sin to eat shellfish and yet we no longer abide by that command. So, why are homosexual acts still to be seen as sinful?

Because both Corinthians and Revelation repeats the fact that it is still a sin.

If one were to insist that it is no longer a sin, then one would at the very least need to admit that it used to be a sin. There used to be a law condemning homosexuality. There is not a single, precise, direct law against contraception, whether in the Old Testament or the New Testament.

See how this works? What you think as perfectly clear " isnt. Everyone thinks their interpretation is the right and reasonable one, or they wouldnt believe it, right?

The case you presented is not that Leviticus does not condemn homosexuality. All they suggest is that the Leviticus laws are no longer valid. People agree - Leviticus condemns homosexuality. What they disagree on is whether it is still against the law. Can you provide a verse that states that contraception has ever been against the law? The fact that I keep asking without getting any answer suggests a clear "no".

Then explain why the same scripture is so precise about some sins (homosexuality) yet so insanely vague about contraception?

Not insanely vague, you just keep repeating that.

All other laws follow a pattern similar to "do not do X". Whether you consider the laws against contraception as vague or not, you cannot argue that at the very least, the laws against literally every other sin is direct. "Do not do X" Why is the law against contraception not as direct?

There is the story of Onan.

Onan is not a direct law stating "do not do X". If you conclude from Onan that contraception is a sin, then to be consistent, you must also conclude that looking around is a sin as per the case of Lot's wife.

There is Genesis and the story of creation, there is the command form God, Be fruitful and multiply there are psalms and proverbs singing the praises of accepting Gods plan for man and His design of our fertility . . .

Nowhere in Genesis is there a law regarding contraception that states "do not do X". I am not asking for conjecture, I am asking for laws. Everything you have given me thus far can be summed up with one word: conjecture.

Let's consider Genesis. Cain killed his brother Abel, and God punished him for that. So the "moral of the story" is that killing is wrong. Yet despite that, God still makes a point of clearly and directly stipulating this law throughout the Bible. It is part of the 10 Commandments, it is part of Leviticus law. It cannot be any clearer: killing is wrong. Stipulated directly. Why does God not stipulate the case of contraception as directly?

Psalm 127:3-5 Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them


Psalm 127:4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth


John 16:20b-22 You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy. 21A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world. 22So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy.


Psalm 127:5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them.


Deuteronomy 30:19 Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live.


Psalm 133:1-2 How good it is, how pleasant, where the brothers dwell as one!


Proverbs 17:6 Grandchildren are the crown of the aged


Psalm 128:3-4 Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table. Behold, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the LORD

All of these Psalms come down to "happy is he who has a bunch of children". This is not a direct condemnation of contraception. That's like saying "it's nice to have money" and then suggesting that it's illegal to be poor.

At best you can argue that it's a "sin" to not have children since the Psalms go on about how great it is having children. Is that your claim? That it's a sin to not have children?

please explain how "be fruitful and multiply" means "don't use contraception"?

I already explained God put no limitations on this command.

What does God not putting limitations on this command have to do with contraception???

I also explained how it is one among many other clues from Scripture on knowing about the immorality of contraception.

I have addressed every single one of your arguments and none of them conclude that contraception is a sin!

So a couple who chooses to be abstinent to avoid pregnancy don't see children as a blessing? People who use NFP to avoid pregnancy don't see children as a blessing?

Sometimes you are correct, a couple could practice NFP for the wrong reasons

What are the "right reasons" for practicing NFP?

But you also fail to understand the Churchs teaching on this matter. NFP should only be undertaken temporarily and for grave reasons

What grave reasons can there possibly be for using NFP?

Please point out a flaw in my interpretation of the story of Onan?

The sin for disobeying the command to marry and have the children of ones brothers widow was not death, so that was not Onans sin.

I never said it was. I said that Onan disobeying a direct order from God was punishable by death. God said "impregnate Tamar" and Onan disobeyed him. That is why he was killed. Similar to why Lot's wife was killed. Not because looking around is a sin,but because disobeying a direct order from God is a sin.

But just to be clear... are you saying that contraception is a sin punishable by death?

If Onans sin was one of disobedience, why the need for Scripture to go into graphic detail that he spilled his seed.

Because spilling his seed is where the direct disobedience occurred. If he did not spill his seed in that instance, he would have finished inside Tamar, thereby fulfilling what God told him to do. Asking why the Bible specified that Onan spilled the seed is like asking why the Bible specified that Lot's wife turned around.

Scripture could have simply said he refused to lie with Tamar.

But that is not true. He did lie with Tamar. But God did not just say "lie with Tamar", he said "impregnate Tamar". So despite the fact that Onan lied with Tamar, his disobedience comes in when he did not complete the task of impregnating her. That is where "spilling the seed" comes in.

Funny you should ask "why could Scripture not simply have said he refused to lie with Tamar", yet you do not wonder why Scripture does not simply say "thou shalt not use contraception".

But he didnt he had sex with her, but pulled out and was struck dead.

Yes, because the command was to impregnate her. When he pulled out, he disobeyed this command.

In addition to that, my interpretation is the interpretation that every Christian and Jewish....

Yes yes "it's true because a bunch of Christians and Jews believed it is true". You've used this argument before.

Ok, gonna try hard to leave it at this. I think I made most of the points I wanted to.

A swift retreat

[RightReason]

[Replying to tam]

Peace to you RR,

And with you also.

Was it incomplete? Or is it the teaching and understanding of the RCC that is in error?

It is incomplete to not include that Christ established His Church and told us to listen to her. The teaching of the Catholic Church is spot on. It does not stop short. It does not leave anything out. It follows the commands of Christ. It does not deny His Church, because to do so is to deny His word and promise.

Lets examine:


Christ is the Truth. He states so Himself. The Bible contains scripture (the Psalms, the Prophets, Moses, and Revelation). The Bible also contains letters that were not inspired (not given in spirit), that often dealt with specific issues of the day; as well as gospel accounts bearing witness to Christ and what Christ said and did.

But the Bible is not the Truth. It never even makes that claim of itself.

I said this very same thing. Your preachn to the choir hon.

Saying something is a pillar and foundation of the truth is not the same as saying that something IS the Truth.

The Church is referred to as pillar and foundation of truth. The foundation. That means it is how Christ wanted His message communicated. The word pillar and foundation also go to show the Church will be visible and strong and solid where we can go to know we are getting it right. That is extremely significant and you dismiss it. I doubt you even knew that passage was in Scripture until I pointed it out. Most of the anti-organized religion crowd dont.

Not when Christ Himself has already identified Himself as the Truth.

Why not? God identified Himself as truth and then tells us to listen to His son and His son goes on to tell us He is truth and to listen to His Church. The one does not negate the other.

But for the sake of argument, even if Paul did mean that the Church is the Truth, how in the world could that be referring to the RCC?

I already showed how. The Catholic Church meets the four marks of how we are to identify Christs Church that we can find in Scripture. Scripture says the Church must be One (teaching a unified message), Holy (the Catholic Church has been a defender of the faith, a defender of the oppressed, the downtrodden, the poor, the hungry, a defender of life from the moment of conception until the moment of death, the largest charitable organization in the world, the founder of schools and hospitals, the home of Saints, etc.), Catholic (or universal " the Catholic Church is on every continent in the nation. All are welcome. She is your home too), Apostolic (Only the Catholic Church has existed for 2017 years and can trace her roots back to Jesus Christ Himself with an unbroken line of succession.

Any church that says it doesnt matter if all believe X. That it is ok to believe X and Y cannot be Christs Church because they lack teaching a unified message.

Any church that cant demonstrate they are defenders of life, have come to the aid of Gods children, and continuously have people doing Gods work like Mother Teresa, St. Katharine Drexel, St. Francis, St. Vincent De Paul, St. Bridget, St. Anthony, -- there isnt enough space in this thread for all the Saints) cant be Christs Church.

Any Church that isnt Catholic/universal cant be Christs Church on earth. That leaves out every Christian denomination that a person couldnt find once they leave their community. And there are a lot of those!

Any Church that isnt Apostolic. If your church was founded in the 1200s, or the 16oos or the 1800s (this includes pretty much every Christian denomination other than the Catholic Church) then your church cant be Christs Church.

Does falsehood come from the Truth?

No it does not. And the Catholic Church has not taught errors in her teachings in matters of faith and morals. Unlike the majority of churches who are constantly changing their teachings, making failed prophesies, caving to the fashions of the day, rewriting theology to fit their personal choices, adding words to Sacred Scripture, leaving out words from Scripture, etc. If your church now teaches same sex relationships are A-ok, then your church cant be Christs Church " truth doesnt change. If your church now teaches contraception is A-ok your church cant be Christs Church. If your church no longer has a problem with couples living together prior to marriage, or divorce your church cant be Christs Church. If your church no longer teaches the True Presence in the Holy Eucharist and now teaches that the Eucharist is simply symbolic then your church cant be Christs Church. If your church no longer teaches your church is authoritative and that Christ has promised to keep her free from error when it comes to His teachings on matters of the faith and morals (and most churches fall into this category because most churches deny Christs Church is authoritative) then your church cant be Christs Church. If your church doest believe in the necessity of Baptism, your church cant be Christs Church. All of the above were what the first Church taught and believed.

Does the Truth tell lies and teach error?

No, but sometimes human beings within the Church do. Sad, but true. Since the existence of God, many who have been appointed by God Himself have still fallen short, screwed up, and sinned. Scripture even recognizes this sad truth.

Do you think the RCC has never taught something false?

Not as an official Church teaching on matters of faith or morals. The Holy Spirit would not allow it. Since the beginning of its foundation people have been trying to get the Church to change her teachings on X or Y or Z , but such has never been the case because Christ wont allow it. Christ promised to remain with His Church and guide her in all truth. So, unless you are suggesting that the gates of hell have prevailed then Christs Church is still solid and strong.

There is no way... none whatsoever... that the RCC (or any religion) is the Truth.

Thats not what God says. Scripture refers to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth. Your anti-religion prejudice is anti Scriptural.

Every single one of them has (and does) teach falsehood, even if in ignorance.

But your body of believers gets it right, huh? How would we know? Where are your teachings? Can you show me this unity of message? Who/where is your church and how can we see if it is Holy? Can your church trace its roots back to Jesus Christ Himself and if so, may I see these records? You must recognize the irony in your comment. You deny the Pope because you see yourself as your own Pope. Thats what Christ hoped to avoid " everyone relying on personal interpretation of His Word. This is why He established an authoritative, earthly, visible, united Church. Each individual reading or hearing something and claiming to be listening to the light of Christ when giving their personal interpretation is wrought with problems and proves a sure fire way of NOT ending up with a unified message.

ONLY CHRIST is the Truth. He is the ONLY one (other than God, Himself) who can TRUTHFULLY bear the title, "Truth".

Then why deny what He says and does? Again your comments would be like an employee claiming he doesnt have to listen to his manager " that he only answers to the CEO. This would not please the CEO, in fact the CEO would be very angry that the employee is undermining his authority as boss to choose his leaders in command.

I wasn't. I was not referring to anything written. I said, and repeat, it is my Lord, Himself, who taught me how to test what others claim, to see if they are speaking from Him, to see if what they claim is true (or not).

What He told me is backed up by what is written, but I learned it first from Him.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And did this come in an audible voice to you? How can you be sure it wasnt your own subconscious speaking to you? How can you be sure you properly understood what God was telling you? How can you be sure you heard Him correctly? How can you know if your own pre conceptions, prejudices, baggage, emotions, feelings, didnt affect the message you received from God?

Quote:
Are you referring to these words from John?
brothers test every inspired expression to see if it originates with God or not -1 John 4:1-4


These words from John state (and so corroborate) testing the inspired expression, yes.

Yes, and you trust John in telling you this. These words did not come directly from God. God chose John to reveal them to you. So, receiving important and valuable information and truths from those God appointed does not negate those truths.

How many people out there claim to read 'scripture as a whole', and use that to justify any number of interpretations?

How many people out there claim to be testing everything by the light of Christ and use that to justify any number of interpretations?

People can make 'scripture as a whole' say whatever they want it to say.

People can make their light of Christ mantra say whatever they want it to say. . .

Christ told me religion is bad
Christ told me love is love. If I want to marry my dog I can
Christ told me it is a sin to receive a blood transfusion
Christ told me he made the human body so there is nothing wrong with pornography
Christ told me it doesnt matter if I go to church or get Baptized what is important is I believe in Him
Christ told me it is ok to leave my husband if we no longer love each other

Even though Christ never forced anyone to 'convert'

Since the beginning, there have been many over zealous followers of Christ, the human race is a work in progress. This doesnt mean Christ did not establish His Church.

Even though Christ enslaved no one, but made HIMSELF a slave, to serve others

No one in the above scenarios was listening to Christ

I agree. Nor are those who spout nonsense like, What is right for you, is not necessarily right for me., one faith is not necessarily better than another, one does not need to be baptized, one does not need to listen to Christs Church, The Church has no authority

Quote:
Is it usurping God to listen to His son?


God said to listen to His Son.


Quote:
Then why is it usurping Christ to listen to His Church?


It is usurping Christ to listen to and look to anyone or anything else before, over, or against Him.

Your anti Catholic bigotry is showing again. Your straw man regarding the Catholic Church is getting old. The Catholic Church is not doing anything Christ didnt already tell us to. The Church does not go before, over, or against Christ! You just have to believe that to be true to justify your knocking her down. But that is simply false anti Catholic propaganda.

Why not just listen to Him? Truly?

Right back at ya, hon!

It makes sense, right? For Him to have established a Church, a visible, audible, earthly authoritative voice? Pretty sweet, right? Why undermine His right, power, and genius in doing so? Truly?

Wouldnt an earthly, authoritative Church make sense given this from Scripture . . .


I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. 13However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come.-John 16


I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete. 2 John 1


************************

In the Gospel of Mark, after the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to the Eleven and gave them the commission, "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk. 16:15-16).


In order to accept or reject the Gospel, each person must have it preached to him. If acceptance or rejection of the truth were based on private revelations given to each man, woman, and child, there would be no need for Christ to commission the Apostles to preach the Gospel. Jesus desired to reveal Himself through His body, the Church.


Jesus graces us with His incarnation, and His presence is known through His body, the Church. The Church carries on the work of Christ here on earth.


http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/rel ... s/without-...

Religion might teach otherwise, but they have a vested interest in keeping people listening to them

Have you ever met a Catholic priest? Have you ever met nuns? Brothers? Did you ever meet Mother Teresa? St. Jose Maria, St. Pope John Paul II? (all modern day Saints). Are you familiar with their sacrifice, love, example, faith? If you were you would not accuse them of being in it for the money, or power " LOL!

Christ's Church (His Body, His Bride) is to listen to Him. Go where they are sent as well, speaks as He gives them to speak, obey His commands and teach others to do the same.

Yep, and we are to listen to His Church.

Do you want me to quote everything in Scripture that wasnt a direct quote from Jesus and you can tell me whether we should ignore it. OR, how about I post AGAIN all the direct quotes from Christ telling us to listen to His Church.




You don't have any direct quotes from Him saying that.

Im getting tired of repeating these . . .


"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever You shall bind on earth, it shall bound also in heaven: and whatsoever Thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be Bound also in heaven: and whatsoever Thou shalt loose on earth, It shall be bound in heaven." - MATHEW 16:18 -19

Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs." "John 21:15


6Whoever listens to youlistens to Me; whoever rejects you rejects Me; andwhoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me. "Luke 10:16

(I clipped out the rest for now in an effort to stay on track and because some things were already responded to in previous posts. I have responded to the rest, but will wait to submit it for a bit)

You clipped out all the good stuff showing


Hmmmmmmmmm . . . . sounds like a church, dare I say a religion . . .


And they devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2:42"47 ESV)


17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.-Hebrews 13:17

If Jesus didnt want a Church, he would have told the apostles in Acts to stop organizing and corrupting his vision for Christianity. In Acts they are meeting, structuring themselves, appointing leaders, etc

So, yes, lots of evidence that Christ established His Church, which has a hierarchical set up, and planned on communicating to us through His Church. In fact that is the ONLY thing that makes sense. Please think about this. There is One Church and we would love you to come home.

Now, my children go back to school this week, so Im going to try very hard not to comment any further. Im off to buy some lunch boxes and back packs and get things together for a new school year. Thank you for the conversation and I wish you well.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 125 by Justin108]

Not getting sucked back in, but had to comment on this . . .

The one thing all Christian denominations agree on is that the Bible has absolute authority.

Uuuuum . . . why dont you ask other Christian denominations if thats true. LOL! Even, Tam in this very thread keeps telling you she is Christian and doesnt believe Scripture has absolute authority. Man, I get tired of people knocking Christianity when they dont even know what Christianity is.

[ttruscott]

Because if you don't, then in order to be consistent, you would also have to believe that turning around is a sin.

- God told Onan to impregnate Tamar
- Onan disobeyed and "spilled the seed"
- God killed Onan
- Therefore, "spilling the seed" is a sin

- God told Lot's family to flee Sodom and not look around
- Lot's wife disobeyed and looked around
- God killed Lot's wife
- Therefore, looking around is a sin

If "spilling the seed" is a sin, then to be consistent, one must also believe that looking around is a sin.

Isn't it instructive that the stories must be distorted to provide the anti-Christian argument???

The story of Onan was about the law GOD gave them and being obedient to the law: Gen 38:8 Then Judah said to Onan, Sleep with your brothers wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother. 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brothers wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lords sight; so the Lord put him to death also. Onan was under a legal obligation and rejected it, so spilling the seed was not the sin, the refusal to provide offspring for his brother was the sin.

As for Lot's wife, she was commanded not to look back (not around) Gen 19:17 When they had brought them outside, one said, Escape for your life! Do not look behind you,...

Her sin was not in looking around but in disobeying the angel's command. She looked back in defiance, putting sorrow for her old life above the restrictions paramount in saving herself to a new life. Defiance and rebelliousness to GOD's instructions is evil worthy of death.

[Benoni]

[Replying to post 125 by Justin108]

Not getting sucked back in, but had to comment on this . . .

The one thing all Christian denominations agree on is that the Bible has absolute authority.

Uuuuum . . . why dont you ask other Christian denominations if thats true. LOL! Even, Tam in this very thread keeps telling you she is Christian and doesnt believe Scripture has absolute authority. Man, I get tired of people knocking Christianity when they dont even know what Christianity is.

Show me in scripture where that "Scripture has absolute authority"???? It is the scriptures with the Spirit of Truth that will reveal truth. Without the Holy Spirit the Bible is nothing but a holy book. That is why you have 20,000 christian religions. You reject God's Spirit with in you.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Benoni]

Show me in scripture where that "Scripture has absolute authority"???? It is the scriptures with the Spirit of Truth that will reveal truth. Without the Holy Spirit the Bible is nothing but a holy book. That is why you have 20,000 christian religions. You reject God's Spirit with in you.

Are your comments directed to me? Because I agree with you. Nowhere in Scripture does Scripture say the Bible alone is our authority. I was correcting Justin, who seems to think all Christians believe the Bible is our authority. I was pointing out how little he knows about Christianity.