|
On September 13 2013 06:26 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 05:20 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved. Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves. Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, or I'd have specific verses to quote. But Jesus says plenty of stuff about presenting a new law which replaces the old law. The old law at that time would have been the stuff in the scriptures as they existed THEN, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Of those, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers tend to do more storytelling, so the Old Law is usually in reference to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For instance, Christianity throws out dietary restrictions to which Jews had always been bound. The requirement for circumcision is also removed; this is all discussed in Acts and in Paul's epistles. The idea that God's requirements of his followers changed drastically after Jesus is pretty essential to Christianity, or else Christians would still celebrate Passover and follow other Jewish traditions which are not part of the Christian heritage. The question then becomes which parts of the Old Testament are general principles which are still in effect (e.g. the Ten Commandments), and which are just cultural practices which defined the Israelites as a people, but need not define modern Christians. Most of the time anything that appears in Leviticus and not anywhere else is thrown out as old law. Deuteronomy gets some of the same treatment. Many things that appear in the Old Testament also appear in plenty of other places, though, so those tend to get kept. Of course, that only frees Christians from a lot of Old Testament requirements. As I mentioned, I think there's still plenty in the New Testament that most Christians wouldn't really support, and I don't know on what grounds somebody who claims the Bible is the direct word of God and reports absolute truth could pick and choose which of those to follow. I think the idea that women shouldn't speak in church, or the idea that women should be subservient to their husbands in a way similar to that by which their husbands are subservient to God, are sexist ideas that reflect the environment of Paul's time, not divine truths for the ages. That makes a little more sense... I guess. I still wonder why the Old Testament is kept at all, if most of it is just for stories, or things you shouldn't do anymore. But back to the picking and choosing. Like you said, even in the New Testament there is a lot of stuff most people wouldn't support today (women's lack of rights, slavery, etc), that most people don't follow, but they still follow SOME of it. How do you decide what is really a "God's guideline" and what is "just old stuff people shouldn't do anymore." Where does it make it clear that you can differentiate one from the other. It seems people pick entirely self-serving ideas. Do you hate gays? Use the Bible to justify it. Do you want to keep your wife under your control? Use the bible to justify that. But they don't follow EVERYTHING in the new testament, just the things that they want to. How do you (personally, if you are a christian) choose what you think is "god's law" (or guidelines), and what is just old nonsense?
Personally I'm not a Christian any more (my screen name is actually my first name and last initial, not my religious association), but I think the idea if you take the Bible to be a divinely inspired document subject to human error is the same as if you take it to be any other human document: try to figure out which ideas are universal truths, and which are just subjective or cultural. It's not purely taking the parts you want; many things you'll find in the Bible are pretty clearly not just cultural, whether or not you agree with them. I hate to say its condemnations of homosexuality sure don't seem to be (although as mentioned, they're said by Paul, and they're said by Leviticus, but they never were said by Jesus).
|
On September 13 2013 06:37 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 06:30 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 06:26 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 05:20 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved. Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves. Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, or I'd have specific verses to quote. But Jesus says plenty of stuff about presenting a new law which replaces the old law. The old law at that time would have been the stuff in the scriptures as they existed THEN, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Of those, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers tend to do more storytelling, so the Old Law is usually in reference to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For instance, Christianity throws out dietary restrictions to which Jews had always been bound. The requirement for circumcision is also removed; this is all discussed in Acts and in Paul's epistles. The idea that God's requirements of his followers changed drastically after Jesus is pretty essential to Christianity, or else Christians would still celebrate Passover and follow other Jewish traditions which are not part of the Christian heritage. The question then becomes which parts of the Old Testament are general principles which are still in effect (e.g. the Ten Commandments), and which are just cultural practices which defined the Israelites as a people, but need not define modern Christians. Most of the time anything that appears in Leviticus and not anywhere else is thrown out as old law. Deuteronomy gets some of the same treatment. Many things that appear in the Old Testament also appear in plenty of other places, though, so those tend to get kept. Of course, that only frees Christians from a lot of Old Testament requirements. As I mentioned, I think there's still plenty in the New Testament that most Christians wouldn't really support, and I don't know on what grounds somebody who claims the Bible is the direct word of God and reports absolute truth could pick and choose which of those to follow. I think the idea that women shouldn't speak in church, or the idea that women should be subservient to their husbands in a way similar to that by which their husbands are subservient to God, are sexist ideas that reflect the environment of Paul's time, not divine truths for the ages. That makes a little more sense... I guess. I still wonder why the Old Testament is kept at all, if most of it is just for stories, or things you shouldn't do anymore. But back to the picking and choosing. Like you said, even in the New Testament there is a lot of stuff most people wouldn't support today (women's lack of rights, slavery, etc), that most people don't follow, but they still follow SOME of it. How do you decide what is really a "God's guideline" and what is "just old stuff people shouldn't do anymore." Where does it make it clear that you can differentiate one from the other. It seems people pick entirely self-serving ideas. Do you hate gays? Use the Bible to justify it. Do you want to keep your wife under your control? Use the bible to justify that. But they don't follow EVERYTHING in the new testament, just the things that they want to. How do you (personally, if you are a christian) choose what you think is "god's law" (or guidelines), and what is just old nonsense? What do you mean by "self-serving"? Is the believer who spends his time at the soup kitchen picking and choosing as you describe? What do soup kitchens have to do with my question? The question is simple: How do you (if you are a "believer") decide what from the bible you should follow, and what you shouldn't? If you can't follow all of it, how do you choose what you do follow, and why? I wouldn't expect the same answer from everyone.
My question was pointed towards the notion that people pick entirely self serving ideas. As for how one decides, that is going to depend on the denomination and the sorts of exposure they've had in terms of sermons and study. Many of the more charity minded believers are going to put a strong emphasis on the parts of the Bible that speak of service, caring for the poor and meek, and the ensnare net of earthly possessions, while those looking for divine justification in regards to their dislike for others will tunnel vision accordingly.
|
On September 13 2013 06:40 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 06:26 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 05:20 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved. Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves. Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, or I'd have specific verses to quote. But Jesus says plenty of stuff about presenting a new law which replaces the old law. The old law at that time would have been the stuff in the scriptures as they existed THEN, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Of those, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers tend to do more storytelling, so the Old Law is usually in reference to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For instance, Christianity throws out dietary restrictions to which Jews had always been bound. The requirement for circumcision is also removed; this is all discussed in Acts and in Paul's epistles. The idea that God's requirements of his followers changed drastically after Jesus is pretty essential to Christianity, or else Christians would still celebrate Passover and follow other Jewish traditions which are not part of the Christian heritage. The question then becomes which parts of the Old Testament are general principles which are still in effect (e.g. the Ten Commandments), and which are just cultural practices which defined the Israelites as a people, but need not define modern Christians. Most of the time anything that appears in Leviticus and not anywhere else is thrown out as old law. Deuteronomy gets some of the same treatment. Many things that appear in the Old Testament also appear in plenty of other places, though, so those tend to get kept. Of course, that only frees Christians from a lot of Old Testament requirements. As I mentioned, I think there's still plenty in the New Testament that most Christians wouldn't really support, and I don't know on what grounds somebody who claims the Bible is the direct word of God and reports absolute truth could pick and choose which of those to follow. I think the idea that women shouldn't speak in church, or the idea that women should be subservient to their husbands in a way similar to that by which their husbands are subservient to God, are sexist ideas that reflect the environment of Paul's time, not divine truths for the ages. That makes a little more sense... I guess. I still wonder why the Old Testament is kept at all, if most of it is just for stories, or things you shouldn't do anymore. But back to the picking and choosing. Like you said, even in the New Testament there is a lot of stuff most people wouldn't support today (women's lack of rights, slavery, etc), that most people don't follow, but they still follow SOME of it. How do you decide what is really a "God's guideline" and what is "just old stuff people shouldn't do anymore." Where does it make it clear that you can differentiate one from the other. It seems people pick entirely self-serving ideas. Do you hate gays? Use the Bible to justify it. Do you want to keep your wife under your control? Use the bible to justify that. But they don't follow EVERYTHING in the new testament, just the things that they want to. How do you (personally, if you are a christian) choose what you think is "god's law" (or guidelines), and what is just old nonsense? if you take the Bible to be a divinely inspired document subject to human error is the same as if you take it to be any other human document: try to figure out which ideas are universal truths, and which are just subjective or cultural. It's not purely taking the parts you want;
This is what I'm interested in. I'm interested in the mechanism(s) believers use to do the choosing/sorting of "human error" and "universal truth."
As a side note, I can't think of many documents I look for "universal truths" in (Maybe physics/chemistry documents? Those are usually involved with experimentation, though.).
I'm also wondering how, if it is the individual doing the choosing, it is NOT just them choosing what they want, ultimately. However, that might lead to a discussion of what "want" really is.
|
On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:
Paul advises people to not bother getting married unless they really have to, because the second coming will be soon anyway. Given that we're nearly two millennia in the future and it still hasn't happened, I don't think people in Paul's time had to be not bothering to make plans for the future because the second coming would make that moot. That's in the Bible, but it's obviously not right, which is only troubling if you hold the Bible to be absolute truth and the divine word of God. If you consider it a divinely inspired document which was still subject to human error, things get a little more reasonable.
IIRC, the marriage thing that Paul talks about has nothing to do with Christ's second coming, at least i've never read anything that had to do with it. During those times there was economic trouble (i think), so Paul was advising them not to marry "to save them the trouble." He also said it would be better to have a husband or wife than to burn with sexual lust. It's not a sin to marry at all. Paul also recommended that people stay single because that way they could effectively devote more of their time to serving Christ, but it is not wrong to marry if the choose. If they were to marry, they would serve Christ but also have to work to please their spouse. He wants people to make the best choices that will help them serve the Lord most effectively.
|
On September 13 2013 06:26 HardlyNever wrote:
That makes a little more sense... I guess. I still wonder why the Old Testament is kept at all, if most of it is just for stories, or things you shouldn't do anymore.
The Old Testament is still in the Bible because it is the track record of God's plan to send his son Jesus to be the atonement for our sins. They aren't just stories that say "this is how we lived back then." There is a lot of symbolism and prophecies throughout the Old Testament that point to the Messiah - Jesus Christ - coming to redeem them. That's a very very broad way of putting it though, but the whole Bible is meant to point you to Jesus.
|
On September 13 2013 06:45 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 06:37 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 06:30 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 06:26 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 05:20 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved. Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves. Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, or I'd have specific verses to quote. But Jesus says plenty of stuff about presenting a new law which replaces the old law. The old law at that time would have been the stuff in the scriptures as they existed THEN, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Of those, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers tend to do more storytelling, so the Old Law is usually in reference to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For instance, Christianity throws out dietary restrictions to which Jews had always been bound. The requirement for circumcision is also removed; this is all discussed in Acts and in Paul's epistles. The idea that God's requirements of his followers changed drastically after Jesus is pretty essential to Christianity, or else Christians would still celebrate Passover and follow other Jewish traditions which are not part of the Christian heritage. The question then becomes which parts of the Old Testament are general principles which are still in effect (e.g. the Ten Commandments), and which are just cultural practices which defined the Israelites as a people, but need not define modern Christians. Most of the time anything that appears in Leviticus and not anywhere else is thrown out as old law. Deuteronomy gets some of the same treatment. Many things that appear in the Old Testament also appear in plenty of other places, though, so those tend to get kept. Of course, that only frees Christians from a lot of Old Testament requirements. As I mentioned, I think there's still plenty in the New Testament that most Christians wouldn't really support, and I don't know on what grounds somebody who claims the Bible is the direct word of God and reports absolute truth could pick and choose which of those to follow. I think the idea that women shouldn't speak in church, or the idea that women should be subservient to their husbands in a way similar to that by which their husbands are subservient to God, are sexist ideas that reflect the environment of Paul's time, not divine truths for the ages. That makes a little more sense... I guess. I still wonder why the Old Testament is kept at all, if most of it is just for stories, or things you shouldn't do anymore. But back to the picking and choosing. Like you said, even in the New Testament there is a lot of stuff most people wouldn't support today (women's lack of rights, slavery, etc), that most people don't follow, but they still follow SOME of it. How do you decide what is really a "God's guideline" and what is "just old stuff people shouldn't do anymore." Where does it make it clear that you can differentiate one from the other. It seems people pick entirely self-serving ideas. Do you hate gays? Use the Bible to justify it. Do you want to keep your wife under your control? Use the bible to justify that. But they don't follow EVERYTHING in the new testament, just the things that they want to. How do you (personally, if you are a christian) choose what you think is "god's law" (or guidelines), and what is just old nonsense? What do you mean by "self-serving"? Is the believer who spends his time at the soup kitchen picking and choosing as you describe? What do soup kitchens have to do with my question? The question is simple: How do you (if you are a "believer") decide what from the bible you should follow, and what you shouldn't? If you can't follow all of it, how do you choose what you do follow, and why? I wouldn't expect the same answer from everyone. My question was pointed towards the notion that people pick entirely self serving ideas. As for how one decides, that is going to depend on the denomination and the sorts of exposure they've had in terms of sermons and study. Many of the more charity minded believers are going to put a strong emphasis on the parts of the Bible that speak of service, caring for the poor and meek, and the ensnare net of earthly possessions, while those looking for divine justification in regards to their dislike for others will tunnel vision accordingly.
Ok, but that leads me to wonder how various denominations formed. My history goes back for enough to understand protestant/catholic, and even (what would become) catholic/eastern orthodox, but a lot of the protestant denominations confuse me. Perhaps that requires extensive reading, but generally I wonder how, if you accept the bible to be made by man, subject to human error, etc. that you might believe ANY of it could be "divine." If some of it is subject to human error, couldn't ALL of it be subject to human error?
Obviously certain denominations are going to claim certain parts are error, while others divine (and I'm sure there is much contradiction with one saying a certain part is error that one claims is divine, and visa versa). At what point does this stop being the same religion?
What are some core tenants that make every christian a christian? There is one god, Jesus was the son of god, and is a "lord and savior?" Do they all agree on that, even? Are there any other core tenants?
|
On September 13 2013 06:48 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:
Paul advises people to not bother getting married unless they really have to, because the second coming will be soon anyway. Given that we're nearly two millennia in the future and it still hasn't happened, I don't think people in Paul's time had to be not bothering to make plans for the future because the second coming would make that moot. That's in the Bible, but it's obviously not right, which is only troubling if you hold the Bible to be absolute truth and the divine word of God. If you consider it a divinely inspired document which was still subject to human error, things get a little more reasonable. IIRC, the marriage thing that Paul talks about has nothing to do with Christ's second coming. During those times there was economic trouble (i think), so Paul was advising them not to marry "to save them the trouble." He also said it would be better to have a husband or wife than to burn with sexual lust. It's not a sin to marry at all. Paul also recommended that people stay single because that way they could effectively devote more of their time to serving Christ, but it is not wrong to marry if the choose. If they were to marry, they would serve Christ but also have to work to please their spouse. He wants people to make the best choices that will help them serve the Lord most effectively.
I don't have the verse off-hand, and we have different recollections of it, so I suppose that's something to look up before the discussion can proceed. That said, I didn't think he said marriage was a sin, just that Paul seemed to sort of think it was a distraction and people ought to avoid it if they can. Even without the second coming bit, that's a pretty stark contrast with what a lot of Christians believe today (e.g. the American dream).
On September 13 2013 06:47 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 06:40 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 06:26 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 05:20 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved. Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves. Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, or I'd have specific verses to quote. But Jesus says plenty of stuff about presenting a new law which replaces the old law. The old law at that time would have been the stuff in the scriptures as they existed THEN, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Of those, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers tend to do more storytelling, so the Old Law is usually in reference to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For instance, Christianity throws out dietary restrictions to which Jews had always been bound. The requirement for circumcision is also removed; this is all discussed in Acts and in Paul's epistles. The idea that God's requirements of his followers changed drastically after Jesus is pretty essential to Christianity, or else Christians would still celebrate Passover and follow other Jewish traditions which are not part of the Christian heritage. The question then becomes which parts of the Old Testament are general principles which are still in effect (e.g. the Ten Commandments), and which are just cultural practices which defined the Israelites as a people, but need not define modern Christians. Most of the time anything that appears in Leviticus and not anywhere else is thrown out as old law. Deuteronomy gets some of the same treatment. Many things that appear in the Old Testament also appear in plenty of other places, though, so those tend to get kept. Of course, that only frees Christians from a lot of Old Testament requirements. As I mentioned, I think there's still plenty in the New Testament that most Christians wouldn't really support, and I don't know on what grounds somebody who claims the Bible is the direct word of God and reports absolute truth could pick and choose which of those to follow. I think the idea that women shouldn't speak in church, or the idea that women should be subservient to their husbands in a way similar to that by which their husbands are subservient to God, are sexist ideas that reflect the environment of Paul's time, not divine truths for the ages. That makes a little more sense... I guess. I still wonder why the Old Testament is kept at all, if most of it is just for stories, or things you shouldn't do anymore. But back to the picking and choosing. Like you said, even in the New Testament there is a lot of stuff most people wouldn't support today (women's lack of rights, slavery, etc), that most people don't follow, but they still follow SOME of it. How do you decide what is really a "God's guideline" and what is "just old stuff people shouldn't do anymore." Where does it make it clear that you can differentiate one from the other. It seems people pick entirely self-serving ideas. Do you hate gays? Use the Bible to justify it. Do you want to keep your wife under your control? Use the bible to justify that. But they don't follow EVERYTHING in the new testament, just the things that they want to. How do you (personally, if you are a christian) choose what you think is "god's law" (or guidelines), and what is just old nonsense? if you take the Bible to be a divinely inspired document subject to human error is the same as if you take it to be any other human document: try to figure out which ideas are universal truths, and which are just subjective or cultural. It's not purely taking the parts you want; This is what I'm interested in. I'm interested in the mechanism(s) believers use to do the choosing/sorting of "human error" and "universal truth." As a side note, I can't think of many documents I look for "universal truths" in (Maybe physics/chemistry documents? Those are usually involved with experimentation, though.). I'm also wondering how, if it is the individual doing the choosing, it is NOT just them choosing what they want, ultimately. However, that might lead to a discussion of what "want" really is.
What I mean is, if you read the Iliad you're not really just looking for the events of the story. You might be sort of interested in how it reflects the culture of the time, but at the same time you're also looking for what it says about humans and their interactions at a basic level. Honestly I think the Bible and the Iliad can be read in very similar ways.
|
On September 13 2013 07:08 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 06:48 IronManSC wrote:On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:
Paul advises people to not bother getting married unless they really have to, because the second coming will be soon anyway. Given that we're nearly two millennia in the future and it still hasn't happened, I don't think people in Paul's time had to be not bothering to make plans for the future because the second coming would make that moot. That's in the Bible, but it's obviously not right, which is only troubling if you hold the Bible to be absolute truth and the divine word of God. If you consider it a divinely inspired document which was still subject to human error, things get a little more reasonable. IIRC, the marriage thing that Paul talks about has nothing to do with Christ's second coming. During those times there was economic trouble (i think), so Paul was advising them not to marry "to save them the trouble." He also said it would be better to have a husband or wife than to burn with sexual lust. It's not a sin to marry at all. Paul also recommended that people stay single because that way they could effectively devote more of their time to serving Christ, but it is not wrong to marry if the choose. If they were to marry, they would serve Christ but also have to work to please their spouse. He wants people to make the best choices that will help them serve the Lord most effectively. I don't have the verse off-hand, and we have different recollections of it, so I suppose that's something to look up before the discussion can proceed. That said, I didn't think he said marriage was a sin, just that Paul seemed to sort of think it was a distraction and people ought to avoid it if they can. Even without the second coming bit, that's a pretty stark contrast with what a lot of Christians believe today (e.g. the American dream). Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 06:47 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 06:40 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 06:26 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 05:20 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved. Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves. Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, or I'd have specific verses to quote. But Jesus says plenty of stuff about presenting a new law which replaces the old law. The old law at that time would have been the stuff in the scriptures as they existed THEN, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Of those, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers tend to do more storytelling, so the Old Law is usually in reference to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For instance, Christianity throws out dietary restrictions to which Jews had always been bound. The requirement for circumcision is also removed; this is all discussed in Acts and in Paul's epistles. The idea that God's requirements of his followers changed drastically after Jesus is pretty essential to Christianity, or else Christians would still celebrate Passover and follow other Jewish traditions which are not part of the Christian heritage. The question then becomes which parts of the Old Testament are general principles which are still in effect (e.g. the Ten Commandments), and which are just cultural practices which defined the Israelites as a people, but need not define modern Christians. Most of the time anything that appears in Leviticus and not anywhere else is thrown out as old law. Deuteronomy gets some of the same treatment. Many things that appear in the Old Testament also appear in plenty of other places, though, so those tend to get kept. Of course, that only frees Christians from a lot of Old Testament requirements. As I mentioned, I think there's still plenty in the New Testament that most Christians wouldn't really support, and I don't know on what grounds somebody who claims the Bible is the direct word of God and reports absolute truth could pick and choose which of those to follow. I think the idea that women shouldn't speak in church, or the idea that women should be subservient to their husbands in a way similar to that by which their husbands are subservient to God, are sexist ideas that reflect the environment of Paul's time, not divine truths for the ages. That makes a little more sense... I guess. I still wonder why the Old Testament is kept at all, if most of it is just for stories, or things you shouldn't do anymore. But back to the picking and choosing. Like you said, even in the New Testament there is a lot of stuff most people wouldn't support today (women's lack of rights, slavery, etc), that most people don't follow, but they still follow SOME of it. How do you decide what is really a "God's guideline" and what is "just old stuff people shouldn't do anymore." Where does it make it clear that you can differentiate one from the other. It seems people pick entirely self-serving ideas. Do you hate gays? Use the Bible to justify it. Do you want to keep your wife under your control? Use the bible to justify that. But they don't follow EVERYTHING in the new testament, just the things that they want to. How do you (personally, if you are a christian) choose what you think is "god's law" (or guidelines), and what is just old nonsense? if you take the Bible to be a divinely inspired document subject to human error is the same as if you take it to be any other human document: try to figure out which ideas are universal truths, and which are just subjective or cultural. It's not purely taking the parts you want; This is what I'm interested in. I'm interested in the mechanism(s) believers use to do the choosing/sorting of "human error" and "universal truth." As a side note, I can't think of many documents I look for "universal truths" in (Maybe physics/chemistry documents? Those are usually involved with experimentation, though.). I'm also wondering how, if it is the individual doing the choosing, it is NOT just them choosing what they want, ultimately. However, that might lead to a discussion of what "want" really is. What I mean is, if you read the Iliad you're not really just looking for the events of the story. You might be sort of interested in how it reflects the culture of the time, but at the same time you're also looking for what it says about humans and their interactions at a basic level. Honestly I think the Bible and the Iliad can be read in very similar ways.
Ok, but what if I read the Illiad and came out saying Hera, is a bitch, Poseidon hates Troy and is capable of sending sea serpents to murder you (and your sons) if you piss him off, and Aphrodite likes Troy. And she has a mortal son, Aeneas. And they are all real, and still affect the world we live in today.
Would that seems like a reasonable reading of it? Or should those be taken as metaphors as well? Should the Illiad, containing the direct interaction of gods and men, be taken as proof of those gods?
|
I mean, obviously not. I'm not really a literature expert, either, but clearly if you read the Iliad as literature, then the factual occurrences of the story are not the interesting part. The most important parts are the more poignant ones: Priam begging for the body of Hector, Achilles fighting despite knowing it'll be the death of him, etc.
|
I don't understand why "obviously not." What are the major differences between the bible and the illiad, in terms of historical accuracy/veracity?
Should they both just be taken as literature from the time they were written?
|
On September 13 2013 07:32 HardlyNever wrote:
I don't understand why "obviously not." What are the major differences between the bible and the illiad, in terms of historical accuracy/veracity?
Should they both just be taken as literature from the time they were written?
I mean, that's what I was advocating, at least. In literature I think its standard practice to take a story and view every aspect of it through the lens of "what does this say about the human condition?" So the actual existence of the Greek gods isn't the important question, because it doesn't say anything about the human condition. Whereas the pride of Achilles, or the tragic heroism of Hector, or the bitter plea of Priam as he kisses the hand of his son's killer are all poignant because they relate to us in our lives in some small way.
Of course, someone like OP would be inclined to treat the Bible as absolute truth, in which case you'll have to ask him what about the Bible he finds so much more convincing than the Iliad. At the very least, the scientific claims of Greek mythology (e.g. the sun is actually Apollo driving a chariot across the sky) are more easily disproven, and pretty clearly not just intended to be metaphorical. The Bible's scientific claims are either less absurd, or more easily interpreted as symbolic.
|
On September 13 2013 07:44 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 07:32 HardlyNever wrote:
I don't understand why "obviously not." What are the major differences between the bible and the illiad, in terms of historical accuracy/veracity?
Should they both just be taken as literature from the time they were written? I mean, that's what I was advocating, at least. In literature I think its standard practice to take a story and view every aspect of it through the lens of "what does this say about the human condition?" So the actual existence of the Greek gods isn't the important question, because it doesn't say anything about the human condition. Whereas the pride of Achilles, or the tragic heroism of Hector, or the bitter plea of Priam as he kisses the hand of his son's killer are all poignant because they relate to us in our lives in some small way. Of course, someone like OP would be inclined to treat the Bible as absolute truth, in which case you'll have to ask him what about the Bible he finds so much more convincing than the Iliad. At the very least, the scientific claims of Greek mythology (e.g. the sun is actually Apollo driving a chariot across the sky) are more easily disproven, and pretty clearly not just intended to be metaphorical. The Bible's scientific claims are either less absurd, or more easily interpreted as symbolic.
Ok, that's what I'm advocating as well.
As a side note, the Greeks believed in their pantheon of gods long after you could physically "disprove" them. They played the same game other religions do today. You can climb to the top of mount Olympus and see that there aren't a bunch of gods hanging out there. They would say they don't actually live up there, it is just a metaphor for being in "the heavens." Apollo didn't actually pull the sun around with his chariot (except when he did, but that's different, somehow). It just means he is the god of the sun, and has dominion over it.
Kind of like the bible and the earth being only 6000 years old. It was actually 6000 years old at some time, but now that we can disprove it, it isn't supposed to be taken literally, it is just a metaphor, or something.
|
I feared this would happen. This blog went its way for ~5 pages but now the non-christians have found it and the discussion runs its predictable course. (until the mods step in, i fear)
I'm a bit sad about this because I rarely see real Christians discuss theological questions and this was a new experience for me. I was hoping that people would leave them alone b/c OP clearly didn't want to discuss with non-christians but here we go.
|
On September 13 2013 08:08 Hryul wrote:
I feared this would happen. This blog went its way for ~5 pages but now the non-christians have found it and the discussion runs its predictable course. (until the mods step in, i fear)
I'm a bit sad about this because I rarely see real Christians discuss theological questions and this was a new experience for me. I was hoping that people would leave them alone b/c OP clearly didn't want to discuss with non-christians but here we go.
He said non-christians could participate if they were "open-minded." I don't see how I'm not being open-minded.
I'm genuinely, 100% interested in knowing how christians decide what to follow out of the bible, and what not to follow (and the rationale behind it). I thought that is what this discussion was about.
Is it going to make a believer out of me? No. But it might help me understand contemporary christianity more.
|
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all.
|
On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all.
Conversion isn't quite as simple as that. I assume the idea here is for non-Christian readers to, out of curiosity, decide to think "Jesus, are you real?" in their head, feeling a little silly doing it. Then they'll be on the lookout for the next few days for some sign from Jesus that he is, in fact, real. But anyone with even a little scientific or statistical background will immediately recognize the massive confirmation bias in such an "experiment."
|
On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another.
Can you clarify? I don't know what you mean by inward interest.
|
On September 13 2013 08:37 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. Conversion isn't quite as simple as that. I assume the idea here is for non-Christian readers to, out of curiosity, decide to think "Jesus, are you real?" in their head, feeling a little silly doing it. Then they'll be on the lookout for the next few days for some sign from Jesus that he is, in fact, real. But anyone with even a little scientific or statistical background will immediately recognize the massive confirmation bias in such an "experiment."
Conversion is a transformation of the heart, solely under the control of God. He comes to you immediately if you earnestly meant it when you asked him into your life and to be your Lord and Savior. It really is that simple. God himself made it simple by asking you to just believe that Jesus is the Son of God.
However, for some people, experiencing the evidence of that conversion differs upon person, depending on how God wants to work in that person's life. For some it's a complete 180 turn, like Saul when he was blinded by God. For others, it's a gradual process, slowly recognizing that their perspective and view on things in life are slowly changing. You gradually start thinking more about what God wants rather than what you want.
|
On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all.
I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others.
In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus."
Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine.
However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above.
|
On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above.
I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
