Gatekeepers of faith really need to reconsider the toxic relationship this period in history has with that term and the peculiar concept truth has become.
It wasn't really explained what, exactly, they mean by that. Here's what their website says:
"We believe the Bible is God’s roadmap for life. Therefore, we value communicating the timeless truth of Scripture in cutting-edge, culturally relevant ways."[0]
- The authors of the Bible were supernaturally guided
- The only path to salvation is Jesus Christ
These are the same core messages taught by the fundamental baptist church of my youth, and I wonder what they mean by communicating in “culturally relevant, cutting-edge ways”.
It seems this claim is more about the format/technology they use, and not about a more enlightened framing of the Bible and Jesus. They continue to preach a sectarian/ethno-centric worldview (i.e. if you were born in the wrong country, you’re kinda screwed) that reifies the anthropomorphic “father god” understanding.
While I consider myself an atheist, a position solidified by my own time in the baptist church, Judaism has always impressed me for its ability to interpret its traditions not through a literal lens and continued clinging to scientifically and philosophically untenable viewpoints, but as a framework that needs to continually update its understanding of the world to remain relevant.
> Because the Bible is inspired by God, it is truth without any mixture of error.
As a Christian I find this to be particularly unnecessary. Do I have to believe the earth is 6000 years old, or the sun stopped moving, or there was a talking donkey. This kind of statement is only needed if you trying to justify your own doctrine by picking verses. I wish it would stop. Early Christians didn't even have a bible.
It's no longer necessary to follow the Mosaic law because Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the law and paid for the sins of his people. If you would like an in-depth answer, google: why do we no longer follow the mosaic law.
And strangely enough, churches still like to trot out Malachi 3:10 that talks about giving 10% of your income.
> Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
And not to mention that the New Testament doesn’t say anything about homosexuality.
You seem to have read the Old Testament. I would encourage you to also read closely the New Testament. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus affirms we should give tithes as well as justice and mercy. As for homosexuality, read Romans 1.
Not all homosexuality is as described in Romans 1, just as not all heterosexuality is not as described in Romans 1.
There is a big difference between heterosexuality within a loving, monogamous relationship and without such, just as homosexuality within a loving, monogamous relationship and without.
As long as homosexuality is monogamous and within a loving relationship, it is no different, meaning no more or less sinful, than a monogamous heterosexual relationship within a loving relationship.
Where, for example, does it say Christians cannot drink in Holy places?
> Drink no wine or strong drink, you or your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting, lest you die.
-- Leviticus 10:9
Applies to Priests in the church/tabernacle, not other Christian participants of communion.
Also, the spicy tone of that blog isn't very charitable:
> 14. Drinking alcohol in holy places (bit of a problem for Catholics, this ‘un) (10:9) [“You will die.” May only apply to the priesthood.]
It almost certainly applies only to priesthood, given the audience of priests it was told to; and "lest you die" isn't the same as "you will die" which makes it seem like gods punishment for drinking.
Oh no, not THAT word.
Gatekeepers of faith really need to reconsider the toxic relationship this period in history has with that term and the peculiar concept truth has become.