The contradictory nature may accomodate different cultures and beliefs, but this is a failing, not a strength as contradictory moral codes lead to unnecessary conflict.

That just simply means we who are inclined to adopt moral codes adopt other moral codes. As an Atheist my own moral code is a lot closer the Catholic moral code than most Atheists would probably be comfortable with. For example I don’t believe in divorce. I’m a bit of a zealot on that front. But my adoption of Catholic principals does not immediately trample other principals because I am not Catholic and not identifying myself by those principals. So my opposition to divorce from my Catholic-informed background is trumped in the public discourse by my love of liberty via what I view as a generic American moral code; parts of which I’ve also adopted. You’ll always find me defending Liberty (or at least thinking I am); you’ll never find me supporting the outlawing of divorce.

Lack of Christian faith also allows one to see that Jesus is an inherently contradictory figure because the authors of the Gospels are unique individuals with unique desires for telling the story of Jesus to appeal to unique constituents. Note too that they’re all telling second hand stories decades (& sometimes centuries as in John) after he may or may not have walked the earth. And that there are many more Gospels than those four included in the Bible.

I see this inherent contradictory nature as a strength of Christianity because there can be NO one correct interpretation. Thus it’s malleability allows it to spread to each person on their own terms and to adopt various parts of the local culture(voodoo beliefs get incorporated in the Caribbean; Polytheistic gods as Saints in the classical Mediterranean). There can be many and are many valid interpretations of Christianity. Each equally valid and with its own legitimate support found inherently within the religion. Each contradicted by other understandings and each subject to scriptural criticism. Unlike, in say, Mormonism or Islam where the writings have direct ties to the founding profits and sometimes include their actual words.

I was reminded by a foreigner not too long ago that Americans are argumentative & intolerant. And we are. But surely through Christianity we have an opportunity to overcome our basic argumentative nature. Can you not accept that contradiction is a part of life when it manifests itself so obviously in your religion? Isn’t the myriad ways in which Christians “legitimately” express their faith proof enough that ONE set of ideas can never govern our free-nation? ie Isn’t our various and myriad Christianities poof enough that the best form of government is one that prizes Liberty of thought, conscious, & action? But it seems that Christians rarely grasp this basic truth. Why does the idea that Liberty in governance is what is important to Christianity in the context of said governance not obvious to many Christians? Is it all the “My Christianity is the Right Christianity” arguments Christians have been having since the birth of your religion?

Not that I have a right to tell any of you what to believe. I just wanted to respond to what Priya said (which I also think is true) and also thought I could offer an outsiders perspective. To me it’s more evidence of the human capacity for self-deceit in that people are able to hold their Christian convictions as proof of a universal morality when they are all obviously and objectively, contradictory even from the perspective of their own religion.

“I love you and if you don’t love me back I’ll torture you eternally.” is not in any way impartiality.

The more I have studied Jesus’ apparent unwillingness to influence the non-believing culture, lifestyles, and institutions, the more I have noticed His immense impartiality.

I offer that Jesus did influence the religious culture (removing the moneychangers in the temple); He reversed the emphasis on religious lifestyles to an emphasis on heart-styles; and He reduced the institution from a great assembly/throng to ‘two gathered in my name’ being sufficient.

Jesus, in my opinion, may have spoken about same-sex attraction and/or same-sex marriage… but the authors of the Gospels wanted to include the shocking stuff – when confronted about marriage, He emphasized ‘one man, one woman, God ‘joining’ them together, and marriage for life’. He even insisted that if a man marries a divorced woman, that man lives in adultery.

And then, Jesus did not change the non-believers’ culture. Jesus changed the believer’s culture.

If Jesus is my example to follow, then I must make room for non-believers to live outside of the four principles.

I tend to believe that I have the option, within the church, to request that men married to divorced women not be in leadership or mentorship positions… but I do not have that option available to me concerning the non-believing community. [I decline the option even within the church, for mercy must triumph over judgment.]

This is why I rejoice that Jesus did not condemn slavery or applaud democracy, for that matter. The ‘Bible got it right’, in my opinion. There really is separation of church and state, per the example of Jesus. The church can indeed have a more ‘strict’ set of rules [if it wishes to live by rules, rather than principles]… but the church-people need to see a Jesus that did not extend His righteousness into any branch of non-believing government.

Much love in Christ always and unconditionally; Caryn

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

As many as there is room for.

Perhaps you know this, but the person healed was the Centurian’s pais, a term that often had sexual connotations. It must have been challenging to those who first read the text and saw Jesus not only treat the Roman as human rather than oppressor but then heal his boytoy.

So who gets to decide what the bible says about anything? The people who point to the literal words (which often contridict) or the people who claim they are using “context” to justify saying the message is something other than what the literal words say?

Bottom line: this is a stupid argument. Anyone can make the bible say anything they want with whatever justification they wish to use. Of course, the interpretationists are in the great position of being non falsifiable. No matter what is found that contridicts their claim, they can just say “it is being interpreted wrong” and voila! they can go on believing whatever it is they wanted to believe to begin with. To my mind, that makes it a rather useless book of moral instruction (or not moral instruction as Timothy would mistakenly have us believe (Timothy seems unclear on what constitutes “morality”).